Long documents
Prompts that approach the documented context limit
Gemma 4 31B
Gemma 4 31B has the larger documented context window.
Confidence: documented
Claude Sonnet 4.5 vs Gemma 4 31B
Updated November 13, 2026. Rank says Claude Sonnet 4.5 is ahead. Price, access, and your workload can each overturn that. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty.
Share or export
Decision reading
Claude Sonnet 4.5 has the higher public point estimate, 46.7 versus 28.81. Their conditional score ranges overlap. These ranges do not establish rank confidence. 2 results are shared. Category rows resting on Estimated evidence or different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.
- API price per 1M tokens
Claude Sonnet 4.5: $3 input / $15 output
Gemma 4 31B: No comparable API price
- Context window
Claude Sonnet 4.5: 200K
Gemma 4 31B: 256K
- Released
Claude Sonnet 4.5: September 29, 2025
Gemma 4 31B: April 2, 2026
- Shared results
- 2
- Claude Sonnet 4.5 only
- 10
- Gemma 4 31B only
- 11
- Like-for-like categories
- 0 / 8
Estimated: Claude Sonnet 4.5 and Gemma 4 31B. Conditional ranges do not establish rank confidence.How the comparison works
Which one for your work
Recommendations appear only when a shared evidence basis or an explicit operating constraint supports the call. Secondary and unsupported use cases stay disclosed below the initial list.
Show secondary and unsupported calls
Coding work
Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks
Not enough matched evidence
Claude Sonnet 4.5 is not ranked on the public lane for coding, so no winner is named for coding.
Confidence: limitedAgentic work
Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion
Not enough matched evidence
Gemma 4 31B is scored on Estimated evidence for agentic, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like.
Confidence: limitedChat turn cost
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
Not enough matched evidence
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Confidence: listed-ratesCache-heavy agent loop cost
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
Not enough matched evidence
The page does not recommend a cost winner because at least one model cannot fit the stated workload in one request. Claude Sonnet 4.5 does not fit this workload in one request. Claude Sonnet 4.5 has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate. Gemma 4 31B has no comparable published API token rate.
Confidence: rate-fallbackRepository review cost
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
Not enough matched evidence
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Confidence: listed-rates
Which one for a specific job
Choose a job from the LLM Selector's task catalog to see the category row it rests on, under the same basis rules as the table below. A directional row stays directional; choosing a job never creates a winner.
The same task catalog as the LLM Selector. Each job names the evidence surface it rests on; nothing here adds a new score.
—Claude Sonnet 4.528.8Gemma 4 31B
Not comparable · BenchAlign v5.8
The coding row is not comparable on the public lane: at least one model is not measured or not ranked there.
Coding scores combine specific tasks and setups. Match the editor, harness, and effort to your workflow.
Same basis rules as the category table below
Or describe your own job
The LLM Selector reads what you need a model for and returns a shortlist, ranked in the same order the job pages publish.
Describe the task and constraints. This selector recommends models; it cannot carry out the task or access your files and accounts.
We keep what you type here, drafts included, for 180 days, and after that only the job and requirements read from it. Nothing is tied to your IP address or account. Leave out names and other personal details. Privacy
What is actually comparable
Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results present for only one model describe coverage, not superiority.
10 Claude Sonnet 4.5 only
2 Shared
11 Gemma 4 31B only
1 category rests on Estimated evidence or different evidence sets. Those rows remain visible for coverage context but do not name a winner.
Shape of the matched evidence
Only shared public evidence is shown. Sparse evidence stays a ruled list rather than being closed into a radar shape.
Too few matched category axes support a radar. The ruled list below shows only shared benchmark results; positions use each benchmark’s normalized display scale when available.
GPQAKnowledge
Normalized gap 0.9Claude Sonnet 4.5:83.4%Gemma 4 31B:84.3%
Bars run 0–100 on each benchmark’s normalized display scale
Category results, on a stated basis
Each row shows the public-lane category score for both models: the BenchAlign v5.8 lane for agentic, coding, reasoning, multimodal, and knowledge, and the weighted public rows elsewhere, with the same rank each model page reports. A row is like-for-like only when both scores rest on Supported evidence or the same weighted set. Directional and not-comparable rows remain visible, but they never receive a winner.
Agentic
Directional only- Claude Sonnet 4.5
- 35.5
- Supported · #80/135
- Gemma 4 31B
- 12.5
- Estimated · #133/135
- Basis
- BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 5 vs 3 public rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Coding
Not comparable- Claude Sonnet 4.5
- Not ranked
- Gemma 4 31B
- 28.8
- Supported · #107/162
- Basis
- BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 2 vs 3 public rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Reasoning
Not comparable- Claude Sonnet 4.5
- Not ranked
- Gemma 4 31B
- 32.0
- Supported · #109/160
- Basis
- BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 1 vs 1 public rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multimodal
Not comparable- Claude Sonnet 4.5
- Not ranked
- Gemma 4 31B
- 47.3
- Supported · #60/67
- Basis
- BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 0 vs 2 public rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Knowledge
Not comparable- Claude Sonnet 4.5
- Not ranked
- Gemma 4 31B
- 36.7
- Supported · #121/180
- Basis
- BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 1 vs 4 public rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multilingual
Not comparable- Claude Sonnet 4.5
- Not ranked
- Gemma 4 31B
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Instruction following
Not comparable- Claude Sonnet 4.5
- Not ranked
- Gemma 4 31B
- 92.9
- #16/157
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Math
Not comparable- Claude Sonnet 4.5
- 32.7
- Unranked · 2 rankable rows
- Gemma 4 31B
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 2 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
| Category | Claude Sonnet 4.5 | Gemma 4 31B | Basis | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agentic | 35.5Supported · #80/135 | 12.5Estimated · #133/135 | Directional onlyBenchAlign v5.8 lane · 5 vs 3 public rows | Directional only |
| Coding | Not ranked | 28.8Supported · #107/162 | Not comparableBenchAlign v5.8 lane · 2 vs 3 public rows | Not comparable |
| Reasoning | Not ranked | 32.0Supported · #109/160 | Not comparableBenchAlign v5.8 lane · 1 vs 1 public rows | Not comparable |
| Multimodal | Not ranked | 47.3Supported · #60/67 | Not comparableBenchAlign v5.8 lane · 0 vs 2 public rows | Not comparable |
| Knowledge | Not ranked | 36.7Supported · #121/180 | Not comparableBenchAlign v5.8 lane · 1 vs 4 public rows | Not comparable |
| Multilingual | Not ranked | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Instruction following | Not ranked | 92.9#16/157 | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Math | 32.7Unranked · 2 rankable rows | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 2 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
Ranks count the models scored in each category’s lane, so the agentic, coding, reasoning, multimodal, and knowledge denominators (BenchAlign v5.8) differ from the provisional-lane categories. Unranked scores sit on the provisional lane’s scale but never name a winner. Like-for-like rows within 0.5 points read as a practical tie.
Supported evidence per lane · bars run 0–100Methodology
What each workload costs
Three fixed token mixes turn per-token rates into comparable decisions. Each scenario states context fit and whether cached input had to fall back to the published list-input rate.
Chat turn
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
- Claude Sonnet 4.5
- $0.0105
- Fits in one request
- Gemma 4 31B
- Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
- Fits in one request
Gemma 4 31B has no comparable published API token rate.
Repository review
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
- Claude Sonnet 4.5
- $0.195
- Fits in one request
- Gemma 4 31B
- Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
- Fits in one request
Gemma 4 31B has no comparable published API token rate.
Cache-heavy agent loop
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
- Claude Sonnet 4.5
- $0.81
- Does not fit in one request
- Cached input priced at the published list-input rate
- Gemma 4 31B
- Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
- Fits in one request
- Cached-input rate unavailable
Claude Sonnet 4.5 does not fit this workload in one request. Claude Sonnet 4.5 has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate. Gemma 4 31B has no comparable published API token rate.
Cached input falls back to the list input rate only where a cached rate is unpublished
Price against score, among all priced models
Overall score against output price per 1M tokens, one model per family. Pricing as of November 12, 2026.
Claude Sonnet 4.5
- 48 models score at least as high as Claude Sonnet 4.5 for the same price or less. The nearest is Kimi K3 (score 68.4, also $15.00 per 1M output tokens).
- Gemma 4 31B has no public API price, so it is not plotted.
Gray dots are the other priced models. The dark step line is the efficiency frontier: for a model under it, another model costs no more and scores at least as high.
See Claude Sonnet 4.5 on the full price vs performance chartSpecification differences
Sourced differences are shown directly. Missing facts stay explicit instead of being inferred from a model name or family.
SpecificationClaude Sonnet 4.5Gemma 4 31B
Context window
Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.
Claude Sonnet 4.5
200K
Gemma 4 31B
API model ID
Claude Sonnet 4.5
Not sourced
Gemma 4 31B
gemma-4-31b-it
Google Gemma Gemini API guideCached-input rate
A missing cached-input rate falls back to the listed input rate only in the stated workload estimate.
Claude Sonnet 4.5
Not published
Gemma 4 31B
No comparable hosted API rate
Documented inputs
Claude Sonnet 4.5
text, image
Anthropic Claude Sonnet 4.5 model pageGemma 4 31B
text, image
Google Gemma 4 model documentationDocumented outputs
Claude Sonnet 4.5
Gemma 4 31B
Provider availability
Claude Sonnet 4.5
Not sourced
Gemma 4 31B
Generally Available · Gemini API, Google AI Studio, open weights
Google Gemma Gemini API guideReasoning profile
Claude Sonnet 4.5
Non-Reasoning
Gemma 4 31B
Reasoning
Weight access
Claude Sonnet 4.5
Proprietary
Gemma 4 31B
Open Weight
License
Claude Sonnet 4.5
Proprietary
Gemma 4 31B
Open Weight
Release date
Claude Sonnet 4.5
2025-09-29
Gemma 4 31B
2026-04-02
If you already use one of these models
- Deployment change
- The models list different providers, so authentication, endpoint behavior, limits, and feature support may change.
- Quality signal
- Claude Sonnet 4.5 has the higher public point estimate, 46.7 versus 28.81. Their conditional score ranges overlap. These ranges do not establish rank confidence.
- Workload cost
- A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
- Context tradeoff
- Gemma 4 31B has the larger documented window (256K).
Run the same representative tasks against both endpoints before changing production traffic.
Questions
Which is better, Claude Sonnet 4.5 or Gemma 4 31B?
Claude Sonnet 4.5 has the higher public point estimate, 46.7 versus 28.81. Their conditional score ranges overlap. These ranges do not establish rank confidence. The page therefore keeps the decision tied to the specific documented workload.
Which is better for coding, Claude Sonnet 4.5 or Gemma 4 31B?
Claude Sonnet 4.5 is not ranked on the public lane for coding, so no winner is named for coding.
Which is better for agentic tasks, Claude Sonnet 4.5 or Gemma 4 31B?
Claude Sonnet 4.5 scores higher for agentic tasks on the public lane, 35.5 to 12.5. Gemma 4 31B is scored on Estimated evidence for agentic tasks, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like. BenchLM does not name a winner for agentic tasks from a directional reading; read the shared benchmark rows directly and test the models on the same task set.
Which costs less, Claude Sonnet 4.5 or Gemma 4 31B?
Both models do not have comparable published API token rates, so this page does not name a universal price winner.
Which has the larger context window, Claude Sonnet 4.5 or Gemma 4 31B?
Gemma 4 31B has the larger documented context window: 256K, compared with 200K.
Self-host vs API cost
Estimates at 50,000 req/day · 1000 tokens/req average.
Claude Sonnet 4.5
API / mo$13,500
Self-host / moNot listed
Break-even—
Proprietary model — self-hosting not applicable.
Gemma 4 31B
API / mo (Novita AI)$405
Self-host / mo$298
Break-even37M/day
Benchmark evidence
The full public result ledger is available for audit without forcing a wide desktop table onto a phone.
Browse raw public benchmark evidence23 rows
Agentic
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Claude Sonnet 4.550%SourceGemma 4 31B—Not directly comparable
OSWorld-Verified
Claude Sonnet 4.561.4%SourceGemma 4 31B—Not directly comparable
VITA-Bench
Claude Sonnet 4.517.0%SourceGemma 4 31B—Not directly comparable
Gert Labs
Shared sourceClaude Sonnet 4.548.51%Gemma 4 31B35.26%Claude Sonnet 4.5 leads this result
JobBench
Claude Sonnet 4.527.7%SourceGemma 4 31B—Not directly comparable
b3 Agent Security
Claude Sonnet 4.5—Gemma 4 31B83.0%SourceNot directly comparable
Cyber Misuse Refusal
Claude Sonnet 4.5—Gemma 4 31B84.0%SourceNot directly comparable
Coding
SWE-bench Verified
Claude Sonnet 4.577.2%SourceGemma 4 31B—Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Claude Sonnet 4.550.0%SourceGemma 4 31B—Not directly comparable
LiveCodeBench v6
Claude Sonnet 4.5—Gemma 4 31B80.0%SourceNot directly comparable
SWE-Rebench
Claude Sonnet 4.5—Gemma 4 31B41.6%SourceNot directly comparable
React Native Evals
Claude Sonnet 4.5—Gemma 4 31B75.2%SourceNot directly comparable
Reasoning
Multimodal
Knowledge
GPQA
Claude Sonnet 4.583.4%SourceGemma 4 31B84.3%SourceGemma 4 31B leads this result
MMLU-Pro
Claude Sonnet 4.5—Gemma 4 31B85.2%SourceNot directly comparable
HLE
Claude Sonnet 4.5—Gemma 4 31B26.5%SourceNot directly comparable
HLE w/o tools
Claude Sonnet 4.5—Gemma 4 31B19.5%SourceNot directly comparable
Math
23 public results · 2 shared
Watch Claude Sonnet 4.5 vs Gemma 4 31B
One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.
Read a sample issueJoin 7,000+ subscribers.
Last updated November 13, 2026