Model comparison
Claude Opus 5 vs Gemma 4 26B A4B
Head-to-head evidence from 16 shared benchmark results across 5 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: Claude Opus 5 #1 (Estimated); Gemma 4 26B A4B #73 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Claude Opus 5 and Gemma 4 26B A4B share 16 comparable benchmark results. 2 of 8 categories are comparable. 63 results are unique to Claude Opus 5; 4 to Gemma 4 26B A4B.
Updated July 24, 2026- Shared results
- 16
- Claude Opus 5 only
- 63
- Gemma 4 26B A4B only
- 4
- Comparable categories
- 2 / 8
Pick Claude Opus 5 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Gemma 4 26B A4B only becomes the better choice if multimodal & grounded is the priority or you want the cheaper token bill.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 16 shared benchmark results across 5 evidence categories; 2 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.
Why this result
Claude Opus 5 is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 85.88 to 57.13. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
Claude Opus 5's sharpest advantage is in knowledge, where it averages 64.7 against 43.4. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is HLE, 64.7% to 17.2%. Gemma 4 26B A4B does hit back in multimodal & grounded, so the answer changes if that is the part of the workload you care about most.
Claude Opus 5 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $5.00 input / $25.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.00 input / $0.00 output per 1M tokens for Gemma 4 26B A4B. That is roughly Infinityx on output cost alone.
Category breakdown
Exact category averages are shown below. Not measured means BenchLM does not have enough sourced public coverage for that model and category.
| Category | Claude Opus 5 | Δ | Gemma 4 26B A4B |
|---|---|---|---|
| Knowledge | Claude Opus 564.7 | Margin← 21.3 | Gemma 4 26B A4B43.4 |
| Multimodal | Claude Opus 566.9 | Margin→ 6.9 | Gemma 4 26B A4B73.8 |
| Agentic | Claude Opus 590.8 | MarginNo overlap | Gemma 4 26B A4BNot measured |
| Coding | Claude Opus 589.5 | MarginNo overlap | Gemma 4 26B A4BNot measured |
| Reasoning | Claude Opus 590.4 | MarginNo overlap | Gemma 4 26B A4BNot measured |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
HLE
KnowledgeA 64.7%B 17.2%Winner: Claude Opus 5Δ 47.5HLE: Claude Opus 5 scored 64.7%; Gemma 4 26B A4B scored 17.2%. Claude Opus 5 wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Claude Opus 5 | Gemma 4 26B A4B | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Claude Opus 5$5 input / $25 output | Gemma 4 26B A4B$0 input / $0 output | Gemma 4 26B A4B has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Claude Opus 5Not available | Gemma 4 26B A4BNot available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Claude Opus 5Not available | Gemma 4 26B A4BNot available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Claude Opus 5Not available | Gemma 4 26B A4B256K | A complete context comparison is not available. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic25 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | Gemma 4 26B A4B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| FrontierBench v0.1Source | 43.3% | — | Not comparable |
| BrowseCompSource | 90.8% | — | Not comparable |
| HLE w/ toolsSource | 64.7% | — | Not comparable |
| DeepSearchQASource | 95.0% | — | Not comparable |
| DRACOSource | 88.6% | — | Not comparable |
| BrowseComp (10-agent, prerelease)Source | 93.6% | — | Not comparable |
| OSWorld 2.0Source | 70.6% | — | Not comparable |
| MCP AtlasSource | 85.8% | — | Not comparable |
| MCP-Atlas claim coverageSource | 89.1% | — | Not comparable |
| LAB all-pass (Anthropic harness)Source | 23.58% | — | Not comparable |
| LAB criterion-pass (Anthropic harness)Source | 93.74% | — | Not comparable |
| LAB all-pass (Harvey held-out)Source | 11.7% | — | Not comparable |
| LAB criterion-pass (Harvey held-out)Source | 94.1% | — | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | 1861 | 770 | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| Toolathlon-VerifiedSource | 80.6% | — | Not comparable |
| Toolathlon Verified Pass@3Source | 87.0% | — | Not comparable |
| Toolathlon Verified Pass³Source | 73.1% | — | Not comparable |
| Toolathlon Verified avg. turnsSource | 23.5 turns | — | Not comparable |
| AutomationBenchSource | 26.0% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | 55.3% | 11.0% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| GDPval-AASource | 68.0% | 13.5% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| AA Tau3 BankingSource | 30.3% | — | Not comparable |
| AA BriefcaseSource | 1720 | — | Not comparable |
| aaTerminalBench21Source | 89.1% | — | Not comparable |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | — | 43.6% | Not comparable |
Coding12 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | Gemma 4 26B A4B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench VerifiedSource | 96% | — | Not comparable |
| SWE-bench ProSource | 79.2% | — | Not comparable |
| SWE MultilingualSource | 89.5% | — | Not comparable |
| SWE MultimodalSource | 59.4% | — | Not comparable |
| deepSweSource | 68.8% | — | Not comparable |
| FrontierCode 1.1 MainSource | 53.4% | — | Not comparable |
| FrontierCode 1.1 ExtendedSource | 63.6% | — | Not comparable |
| ProgramBench (episode 1)Source | 83.0% | — | Not comparable |
| ProgramBenchSource | 93.0% | — | Not comparable |
| cursorBench32Source | 70.0% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Coding IndexSource | 78.0% | 39.3% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 55.7% | 40.0% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
Reasoning5 benchmarks
KnowledgeClaude Opus 5 wins22 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | Gemma 4 26B A4B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| HLESource | 64.7% | 17.2% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| HLE w/o toolsSource | 56.3% | 8.7% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| HealthBench (raw)Source | 67.1% | — | Not comparable |
| HealthBench (length-adjusted)Source | 57.8% | — | Not comparable |
| HealthBench ProfessionalSource | 59.8% | — | Not comparable |
| HealthBench Professional (raw)Source | 73.4% | — | Not comparable |
| BioMysteryBench (human-solvable)Source | 90.1% | — | Not comparable |
| BioMysteryBench (human-difficult)Source | 49.4% | — | Not comparable |
| SpatialBench VerifiedSource | 72.5% | — | Not comparable |
| SingleCellBenchSource | 60.6% | — | Not comparable |
| ProteinGym HardSource | 47.7% | — | Not comparable |
| Protein DesignSource | 42.5% | — | Not comparable |
| Organic chemistry V2Source | 61.6% | — | Not comparable |
| Protocols (troubleshooting)Source | 61.1% | — | Not comparable |
| Protocols (understanding)Source | 78.4% | — | Not comparable |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 60.7% | 25.7% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 93.2% | 79.2% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| AA-HLESource | 52.6% | 18.3% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | 31.3% | -48.1% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 54.2% | 18.2% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 50.1% | 80.9% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| MMLU-ProSource | — | 82.6% | Not comparable |
Math5 benchmarks
Multilingual3 benchmarks
MultimodalGemma 4 26B A4B wins10 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | Gemma 4 26B A4B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Chartography (no tools)Source | 29.6% | — | Not comparable |
| Chartography (tools)Source | 83.0% | — | Not comparable |
| BenchCAD Vision2Code (no tools)Source | 0.366 | — | Not comparable |
| BenchCAD Vision2Code (tools)Source | 0.821 | — | Not comparable |
| GDP.pdf (no tools)Source | 83.4% | — | Not comparable |
| GDP.pdf (tools)Source | 85.5% | — | Not comparable |
| OfficeQASource | 78.1% | — | Not comparable |
| OfficeQA ProSource | 66.9% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-MMMU-ProSource | 84.7% | 69.2% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| MMMU-ProSource | — | 73.8% | Not comparable |
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | Gemma 4 26B A4B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | — | 72.4% | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (3)
Which is better, Claude Opus 5 or Gemma 4 26B A4B?
Claude Opus 5 is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 85.88 to 57.13. The biggest single separator in this matchup is HLE, where the scores are 64.7% and 17.2%.
Which is better for knowledge tasks, Claude Opus 5 or Gemma 4 26B A4B?
Claude Opus 5 has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 64.7 versus 43.4. Inside this category, AA-Omniscience Index is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for multimodal and grounded tasks, Claude Opus 5 or Gemma 4 26B A4B?
Gemma 4 26B A4B has the edge for multimodal and grounded tasks in this comparison, averaging 73.8 versus 66.9. Inside this category, AA-MMMU-Pro is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.