Knowledge
Directional only- Claude Sonnet 4.5
- 83.4
- Gemma 4 E2B
- 56.9
- Weighted basis
- 1 vs 2 rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Claude Sonnet 4.5 vs Gemma 4 E2B
Updated August 18, 2026. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. They are not guarantees for a specific workload.
Decision reading
Claude Sonnet 4.5 has the higher public score estimate, 54.16 versus 42.18, but the 90% score intervals overlap. Treat that as a lead, not a settled winner.
1 results are shared. Category rows based on different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.
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.
Long documents
Prompts that approach the documented context limit
Claude Sonnet 4.5
Claude Sonnet 4.5 has the larger documented context window.
Confidence: documented
Show secondary and unsupported calls
Coding work
Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks
Not enough matched evidence
No shared weighted benchmark basis supports a winner.
Confidence: limited
Agentic work
Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion
Not enough matched evidence
No shared weighted benchmark basis supports a winner.
Confidence: limited
Chat 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-rates
Cache-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. Gemma 4 E2B 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 E2B has no comparable published API token rate.
Confidence: rate-fallback
Repository 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
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
1 Shared
1 Gemma 4 E2B only
- Shared results
- 1
- Claude Sonnet 4.5 only
- 10
- Gemma 4 E2B only
- 1
- Like-for-like categories
- 0 / 8
1 category uses different evidence sets. Those rows remain visible for coverage context but do not name a winner.
Category results, on a stated basis
Each row states whether both averages use the same weighted benchmark set. Directional and not-comparable rows remain visible, but they never receive a winner in this template.
Agentic
Not comparable- Claude Sonnet 4.5
- 55.4
- Gemma 4 E2B
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 2 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Coding
Not comparable- Claude Sonnet 4.5
- 77.2
- Gemma 4 E2B
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 1 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Reasoning
Not comparable- Claude Sonnet 4.5
- 13.6
- Gemma 4 E2B
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 1 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Math
Not comparable- Claude Sonnet 4.5
- 11.2
- Gemma 4 E2B
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 2 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multilingual
Not comparable- Claude Sonnet 4.5
- Not measured
- Gemma 4 E2B
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multimodal
Not comparable- Claude Sonnet 4.5
- Not measured
- Gemma 4 E2B
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Instruction following
Not comparable- Claude Sonnet 4.5
- Not measured
- Gemma 4 E2B
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
| Category | Claude Sonnet 4.5 | Gemma 4 E2B | Weighted basis | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Knowledge | 83.4 | 56.9 | Directional only1 vs 2 rows | Directional only |
| Agentic | 55.4 | Not measured | Not comparable2 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Coding | 77.2 | Not measured | Not comparable1 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Reasoning | 13.6 | Not measured | Not comparable1 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Math | 11.2 | Not measured | Not comparable2 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Multilingual | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Multimodal | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Instruction following | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
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.
GPQA
Knowledge
Claude Sonnet 4.5: 83.4%Gemma 4 E2B: 43.4%Normalized gap 40.0Claude Sonnet 4.5 source Gemma 4 E2B source
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 E2B
- Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
- Fits in one request
Gemma 4 E2B 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 E2B
- Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
- Fits in one request
Gemma 4 E2B 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 E2B
- Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
- Does not fit in one request
- Cached-input rate unavailable
Claude Sonnet 4.5 does not fit this workload in one request. Gemma 4 E2B 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 E2B has no comparable published API token rate.
Specification 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 E2B
Context window
Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.
Claude Sonnet 4.5
200K
Gemma 4 E2B
API model ID
Claude Sonnet 4.5
Not sourced
Gemma 4 E2B
Not sourced
Cached-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 E2B
No comparable hosted API rate
Documented inputs
Claude Sonnet 4.5
Not sourced
Gemma 4 E2B
text, image, audio, video
Google Gemma 4 model documentationDocumented outputs
Claude Sonnet 4.5
Not sourced
Gemma 4 E2B
Provider availability
Claude Sonnet 4.5
Not sourced
Gemma 4 E2B
Open Weights · open weights
Google gemma-4-E2B model cardReasoning profile
Claude Sonnet 4.5
Non-Reasoning
Gemma 4 E2B
Reasoning
Weight access
Claude Sonnet 4.5
Proprietary
Gemma 4 E2B
Open Weight
License
Claude Sonnet 4.5
Proprietary
Gemma 4 E2B
Open Weight
Release date
Claude Sonnet 4.5
2025-09-01
Gemma 4 E2B
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 score estimate, 54.16 versus 42.18, but the 90% score intervals overlap.
- Workload cost
- A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
- Context tradeoff
- Claude Sonnet 4.5 has the larger documented window (200K).
Run the same representative tasks against both endpoints before changing production traffic.
Benchmark evidence
The full public result ledger is available for audit without forcing a wide desktop table onto a phone.
Browse raw public benchmark evidence12 rows
Agentic
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Claude Sonnet 4.550%SourceGemma 4 E2B—Not directly comparable
OSWorld-Verified
Claude Sonnet 4.561.4%SourceGemma 4 E2B—Not directly comparable
VITA-Bench
Claude Sonnet 4.517.0%SourceGemma 4 E2B—Not directly comparable
Gert Labs
Claude Sonnet 4.548.51%SourceGemma 4 E2B—Not directly comparable
JobBench
Claude Sonnet 4.527.7%SourceGemma 4 E2B—Not directly comparable
Coding
SWE-bench Verified
Claude Sonnet 4.577.2%SourceGemma 4 E2B—Not directly comparable
Reasoning
ARC-AGI-2
Claude Sonnet 4.513.6%SourceGemma 4 E2B—Not directly comparable
Knowledge
Math
Frequently asked questions
Which is better, Claude Sonnet 4.5 or Gemma 4 E2B?
Claude Sonnet 4.5 has the higher public score estimate, 54.16 versus 42.18, but the 90% score intervals overlap. The higher estimate is not a decisive winner because the uncertainty ranges overlap.
Which is better for coding, Claude Sonnet 4.5 or Gemma 4 E2B?
The published evidence does not provide a shared weighted coding basis for both models, so BenchLM does not name a coding winner.
Which is better for agentic tasks, Claude Sonnet 4.5 or Gemma 4 E2B?
The published evidence does not provide a shared weighted agentic tasks basis for both models, so BenchLM does not name a agentic tasks winner.
Which costs less, Claude Sonnet 4.5 or Gemma 4 E2B?
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 E2B?
Claude Sonnet 4.5 has the larger documented context window: 200K, compared with 128K.
Related comparisons
Last updated August 18, 2026
Watch Claude Sonnet 4.5 vs Gemma 4 E2B
One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.
Read a sample issueJoin 2,000+ readers.