Model comparison
Claude Opus 5 vs Gemma 4 E4B
Head-to-head evidence from 14 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 E4B #166 (Estimated). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Claude Opus 5 and Gemma 4 E4B share 14 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 65 results are unique to Claude Opus 5; 4 to Gemma 4 E4B.
Updated July 24, 2026- Shared results
- 14
- Claude Opus 5 only
- 65
- Gemma 4 E4B only
- 4
- Comparable categories
- 1 / 8
Pick Claude Opus 5 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Gemma 4 E4B only becomes the better choice if knowledge is the priority or you want the cheaper token bill.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 14 shared benchmark results across 5 evidence categories; 1 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 42.07. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
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 E4B. 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 E4B |
|---|---|---|---|
| Knowledge | Claude Opus 564.7 | Margin→ 2.7 | Gemma 4 E4B67.4 |
| Agentic | Claude Opus 590.8 | MarginNo overlap | Gemma 4 E4BNot measured |
| Coding | Claude Opus 589.5 | MarginNo overlap | Gemma 4 E4BNot measured |
| Reasoning | Claude Opus 590.4 | MarginNo overlap | Gemma 4 E4BNot measured |
| Multimodal | Claude Opus 566.9 | MarginNo overlap | Gemma 4 E4BNot measured |
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Claude Opus 5 | Gemma 4 E4B | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Claude Opus 5$5 input / $25 output | Gemma 4 E4B$0 input / $0 output | Gemma 4 E4B has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Claude Opus 5Not available | Gemma 4 E4BNot available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Claude Opus 5Not available | Gemma 4 E4BNot available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Claude Opus 5Not available | Gemma 4 E4B128K | A complete context comparison is not available. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic25 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | Gemma 4 E4B | 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 | 231 | 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% | 1.8% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| GDPval-AASource | 68.0% | 0.0% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| AA Tau3 BankingSource | 30.3% | — | Not comparable |
| AA BriefcaseSource | 1720 | — | Not comparable |
| aaTerminalBench21Source | 89.1% | — | Not comparable |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | — | 20.8% | Not comparable |
Coding12 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | Gemma 4 E4B | 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% | 9.4% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 55.7% | 24.4% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
Reasoning5 benchmarks
KnowledgeGemma 4 E4B wins23 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | Gemma 4 E4B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| HLESource | 64.7% | — | Not comparable |
| HLE w/o toolsSource | 56.3% | — | Not comparable |
| 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% | 11.9% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 93.2% | 52.2% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| AA-HLESource | 52.6% | 3.7% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | 31.3% | -20.0% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 54.2% | 8.6% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 50.1% | 31.3% | Gemma 4 E4B leads |
| GPQASource | — | 58.6% | Not comparable |
| MMLU-ProSource | — | 69.4% | Not comparable |
Math5 benchmarks
Multilingual3 benchmarks
Multimodal9 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | Gemma 4 E4B | 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% | 51.4% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | Gemma 4 E4B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | — | 40.6% | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (2)
Which is better, Claude Opus 5 or Gemma 4 E4B?
Claude Opus 5 is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 85.88 to 42.07.
Which is better for knowledge tasks, Claude Opus 5 or Gemma 4 E4B?
Gemma 4 E4B has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 67.4 versus 64.7. Inside this category, AA-Omniscience Index is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.