Model A

Anthropic

69.84/100

Supported · Public rank #20

90% interval 66.7–73.0

Claude Sonnet 5 vs Gemma 4 26B A4B

Updated September 10, 2026. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. They are not guarantees for a specific workload.

Model B

Gemma 4 26B A4B

Google

55.09/100

Supported · Public rank #98

90% interval 39.0–71.1

Decision reading

Claude Sonnet 5 has the higher public score estimate, 69.84 versus 55.09, but the 90% score intervals overlap. Treat that as a lead, not a settled winner.

2 results are shared. Category rows resting on Estimated evidence or different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.

Share or export

Share on X LinkedInSocial card CSV JSON

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.

Coding work
Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks
Claude Sonnet 5
Claude Sonnet 5 leads on the public coding lane, 64 to 41.3, with Supported evidence for both models and non-overlapping 90% intervals.
Confidence: stronger
Long documents
Prompts that approach the documented context limit
Claude Sonnet 5
Claude Sonnet 5 has the larger documented context window.
Confidence: documented

Show secondary and unsupported calls

Agentic work
Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion
Not enough matched evidence
Gemma 4 26B A4B is scored on Estimated evidence for agentic, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like.
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
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Confidence: listed-rates
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.

22 Claude Sonnet 5 only

2 Shared

2 Gemma 4 26B A4B only

Shared results: 2
Claude Sonnet 5 only: 22
Gemma 4 26B A4B only: 2
Like-for-like categories: 2 / 8

2 categories rest on Estimated evidence or different evidence sets. Those rows remain visible for coverage context but do not name a winner.

Category results, on a stated basis

Each row shows the public-lane category score for both models: the BenchAlign lane for agentic, coding, 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.

Coding

Like-for-like

Claude Sonnet 5: 64.0; Supported · #13/151
Gemma 4 26B A4B: 41.3; Supported · #109/151
Basis: BenchAlign lane · 10 vs 0 public rows
Reading: Claude Sonnet 5 leads

Knowledge

Like-for-like

Claude Sonnet 5: 66.6; Supported · #20/183
Gemma 4 26B A4B: 43.2; Supported · #119/183
Basis: BenchAlign lane · 6 vs 3 public rows
Reading: Claude Sonnet 5 leads

Agentic

Directional only

Claude Sonnet 5: 65.8; Supported · #11/152
Gemma 4 26B A4B: 51.8; Estimated · #42/152
Basis: BenchAlign lane · 6 vs 0 public rows
Reading: Directional only

Multimodal

Directional only

Claude Sonnet 5: 77.5; #13/48
Gemma 4 26B A4B: 44.1; #41/48
Basis: Provisional lane · 1 vs 1 weighted rows
Reading: Directional only

Reasoning

Not comparable

Claude Sonnet 5: 77.4; Unranked · 2 rankable rows
Gemma 4 26B A4B: 66.2; Unranked · 2 rankable rows
Basis: Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading: Not comparable

Math

Not comparable

Claude Sonnet 5: Not ranked
Gemma 4 26B A4B: Not ranked
Basis: Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading: Not comparable

Multilingual

Not comparable

Claude Sonnet 5: Not ranked
Gemma 4 26B A4B: Not ranked
Basis: Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading: Not comparable

Instruction following

Not comparable

Claude Sonnet 5: Not ranked
Gemma 4 26B A4B: 88.7; #30/123
Basis: Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading: Not comparable

Category scores with the server-provided evidence basis for Claude Sonnet 5 and Gemma 4 26B A4B
Category	Claude Sonnet 5	Gemma 4 26B A4B	Basis	Reading
Coding	64.0Supported · #13/151	41.3Supported · #109/151	Like-for-likeBenchAlign lane · 10 vs 0 public rows	Claude Sonnet 5 leads
Knowledge	66.6Supported · #20/183	43.2Supported · #119/183	Like-for-likeBenchAlign lane · 6 vs 3 public rows	Claude Sonnet 5 leads
Agentic	65.8Supported · #11/152	51.8Estimated · #42/152	Directional onlyBenchAlign lane · 6 vs 0 public rows	Directional only
Multimodal	77.5#13/48	44.1#41/48	Directional onlyProvisional lane · 1 vs 1 weighted rows	Directional only
Reasoning	77.4Unranked · 2 rankable rows	66.2Unranked · 2 rankable rows	Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows	Not comparable
Math	Not ranked	Not ranked	Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows	Not comparable
Multilingual	Not ranked	Not ranked	Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows	Not comparable
Instruction following	Not ranked	88.7#30/123	Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows	Not comparable

Ranks count the models scored in each category’s lane, so the agentic, coding, and knowledge denominators (BenchAlign) differ from the provisional-lane categories. Unranked scores sit on the lane’s scale but never name a winner. Like-for-like rows within 0.5 points read as a practical tie.

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.

HLE
Knowledge
Claude Sonnet 5: 57.4%Gemma 4 26B A4B: 17.2%Normalized gap 40.2Claude Sonnet 5 source Gemma 4 26B A4B source
HLE w/o tools
Knowledge
Claude Sonnet 5: 43.2%Gemma 4 26B A4B: 8.7%Normalized gap 34.5Claude Sonnet 5 source Gemma 4 26B A4B 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 5: $0.007; Fits in one request
Gemma 4 26B A4B: Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies; Fits in one request

Gemma 4 26B A4B has no comparable published API token rate.

Repository review

50K fresh input + 3K output tokens

Claude Sonnet 5: $0.13; Fits in one request
Gemma 4 26B A4B: Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies; Fits in one request

Gemma 4 26B A4B has no comparable published API token rate.

Cache-heavy agent loop

200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens

Claude Sonnet 5: $0.18; Fits in one request
Gemma 4 26B A4B: Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies; Fits in one request; Cached-input rate unavailable

Gemma 4 26B A4B

Reasoning

Weight access

Claude Sonnet 5

Proprietary

Gemma 4 26B A4B

Open Weight

License

Claude Sonnet 5

Proprietary

Gemma 4 26B A4B

Open Weight

Release date

Claude Sonnet 5

2026-06-30

Gemma 4 26B A4B

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 5 has the higher public score estimate, 69.84 versus 55.09, but the 90% score intervals overlap.
Workload cost: A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Context tradeoff: Claude Sonnet 5 has the larger documented window (1M).

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 evidence26 rows

Agentic

Terminal-Bench 3.0
Claude Sonnet 514.6%
Source
Gemma 4 26B A4B—
Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Claude Sonnet 580.4%
Source
Gemma 4 26B A4B—
Not directly comparable
BrowseComp
Claude Sonnet 584.7%
Source
Gemma 4 26B A4B—
Not directly comparable
HLE w/ tools
Claude Sonnet 557.4%
Source
Gemma 4 26B A4B—
Not directly comparable
OSWorld-Verified
Claude Sonnet 581.2%
Source
Gemma 4 26B A4B—
Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals)
Claude Sonnet 574.5%
Source
Gemma 4 26B A4B—
Not directly comparable

Coding

SWE-bench Verified
Claude Sonnet 585.2%
Source
Gemma 4 26B A4B—
Not directly comparable
SWE-bench Pro
Claude Sonnet 563.2%
Source
Gemma 4 26B A4B—
Not directly comparable
SWE Multilingual
Claude Sonnet 578.3%
Source
Gemma 4 26B A4B—
Not directly comparable
SWE Multimodal
Claude Sonnet 528.1%
Source
Gemma 4 26B A4B—
Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Claude Sonnet 580.4%
Source
Gemma 4 26B A4B—
Not directly comparable
FrontierCode 1.1 Main
Claude Sonnet 542.7%
Source
Gemma 4 26B A4B—
Not directly comparable
cursorBench32
Claude Sonnet 561.5%
Source
Gemma 4 26B A4B—
Not directly comparable
VulcanBench CII v1
Claude Sonnet 589.2%
Source
Gemma 4 26B A4B—
Not directly comparable
LiveCodeBench (Vals)
Claude Sonnet 582.4%
Source
Gemma 4 26B A4B—
Not directly comparable
SWE-bench (Vals)
Claude Sonnet 579.6%
Source
Gemma 4 26B A4B—
Not directly comparable

Knowledge

HLE
Claude Sonnet 557.4%
Source
Gemma 4 26B A4B17.2%
Source
Claude Sonnet 5 leads this result
HLE w/o tools
Claude Sonnet 543.2%
Source
Gemma 4 26B A4B8.7%
Source
Claude Sonnet 5 leads this result
HLE-Verified
Claude Sonnet 531.0%
Source
Gemma 4 26B A4B—
Not directly comparable
LABBench2
Claude Sonnet 580.1%
Source
Gemma 4 26B A4B—
Not directly comparable
GPQA Diamond (Vals)
Claude Sonnet 588.9%
Source
Gemma 4 26B A4B—
Not directly comparable
MMLU-Pro (Vals)
Claude Sonnet 587.5%
Source
Gemma 4 26B A4B—
Not directly comparable
MMLU-Pro
Claude Sonnet 5—
Gemma 4 26B A4B82.6%
Source
Not directly comparable

Multimodal

CharXiv
Claude Sonnet 588.3%
Source
Gemma 4 26B A4B—
Not directly comparable
CharXiv w/o tools
Claude Sonnet 577%
Source
Gemma 4 26B A4B—
Not directly comparable
MMMU-Pro
Claude Sonnet 5—
Gemma 4 26B A4B73.8%
Source
Not directly comparable

Frequently asked questions

Which is better, Claude Sonnet 5 or Gemma 4 26B A4B?

Claude Sonnet 5 has the higher public score estimate, 69.84 versus 55.09, 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 5 or Gemma 4 26B A4B?

Claude Sonnet 5 leads the public coding lane, 64 to 41.3, with Supported evidence for both models and non-overlapping 90% intervals.

Which is better for agentic tasks, Claude Sonnet 5 or Gemma 4 26B A4B?

Claude Sonnet 5 scores higher for agentic tasks on the public lane, 65.8 to 51.8. Gemma 4 26B A4B 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 5 or Gemma 4 26B A4B?

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 5 or Gemma 4 26B A4B?

Claude Sonnet 5 has the larger documented context window: 1M, compared with 256K.

Related comparisons

Compare API pricing Read the methodology Open the model selector

Last updated September 10, 2026

Watch Claude Sonnet 5 vs Gemma 4 26B A4B

One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.

Read a sample issue

Join 2,000+ readers.

Claude Sonnet 5 vs Gemma 4 26B A4B

Which one for your work

Coding work

Long documents

Agentic work

Chat turn cost

Cache-heavy agent loop cost

Repository review cost

What is actually comparable

Category results, on a stated basis

Coding

Knowledge

Agentic

Multimodal

Reasoning

Math

Multilingual

Instruction following

Shape of the matched evidence

What each workload costs

Chat turn

Repository review

Cache-heavy agent loop

Specification differences

Context window

API model ID

Cached-input rate

Documented inputs

Documented outputs

Provider availability

Reasoning profile

Weight access

License

Release date

Benchmark evidence

Agentic

Coding

Knowledge

Multimodal

Frequently asked questions

Which is better, Claude Sonnet 5 or Gemma 4 26B A4B?

Which is better for coding, Claude Sonnet 5 or Gemma 4 26B A4B?

Which is better for agentic tasks, Claude Sonnet 5 or Gemma 4 26B A4B?

Which costs less, Claude Sonnet 5 or Gemma 4 26B A4B?

Which has the larger context window, Claude Sonnet 5 or Gemma 4 26B A4B?

Related comparisons

Watch Claude Sonnet 5 vs Gemma 4 26B A4B