Model A

Anthropic

64.8/100

Estimated · Public rank #37

90% interval 50.5–79.1

Claude Sonnet 5 vs Gemma 4 31B

Updated August 14, 2026. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. They are not guarantees for a specific workload.

Model B

Gemma 4 31B

Google

60.1/100

Supported · Public rank #60

90% interval 44.0–76.3

Decision reading

Claude Sonnet 5 has the higher public score estimate, 64.78 versus 60.15, but the 90% score intervals overlap. Treat that as a lead, not a settled winner.

2 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 5
Claude Sonnet 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
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.

17 Claude Sonnet 5 only

2 Shared

6 Gemma 4 31B only

Shared results: 2
Claude Sonnet 5 only: 17
Gemma 4 31B only: 6
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.

Knowledge

Directional only

Claude Sonnet 5: 57.4
Gemma 4 31B: 52.9
Weighted basis: 1 vs 3 rows
Reading: Directional only

Agentic

Not comparable

Claude Sonnet 5: 81.9
Gemma 4 31B: Not measured
Weighted basis: 3 vs 0 rows
Reading: Not comparable

Coding

Not comparable

Claude Sonnet 5: 76.7
Gemma 4 31B: 41.6
Weighted basis: 2 vs 1 rows
Reading: Not comparable

Reasoning

Not comparable

Claude Sonnet 5: Not measured
Gemma 4 31B: Not measured
Weighted basis: 0 vs 0 rows
Reading: Not comparable

Math

Not comparable

Claude Sonnet 5: Not measured
Gemma 4 31B: Not measured
Weighted basis: 0 vs 0 rows
Reading: Not comparable

Multilingual

Not comparable

Claude Sonnet 5: Not measured
Gemma 4 31B: Not measured
Weighted basis: 0 vs 0 rows
Reading: Not comparable

Multimodal

Not comparable

Claude Sonnet 5: 88.3
Gemma 4 31B: 76.9
Weighted basis: 1 vs 1 rows
Reading: Not comparable

Instruction following

Not comparable

Claude Sonnet 5: Not measured
Gemma 4 31B: Not measured
Weighted basis: 0 vs 0 rows
Reading: Not comparable

Category averages with the server-provided evidence basis for Claude Sonnet 5 and Gemma 4 31B
Category	Claude Sonnet 5	Gemma 4 31B	Weighted basis	Reading
Knowledge	57.4	52.9	Directional only1 vs 3 rows	Directional only
Agentic	81.9	Not measured	Not comparable3 vs 0 rows	Not comparable
Coding	76.7	41.6	Not comparable2 vs 1 rows	Not comparable
Reasoning	Not measured	Not measured	Not comparable0 vs 0 rows	Not comparable
Math	Not measured	Not measured	Not comparable0 vs 0 rows	Not comparable
Multilingual	Not measured	Not measured	Not comparable0 vs 0 rows	Not comparable
Multimodal	88.3	76.9	Not comparable1 vs 1 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.

HLE
Knowledge
Claude Sonnet 5: 57.4%Gemma 4 31B: 26.5%Normalized gap 30.9Claude Sonnet 5 source Gemma 4 31B 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 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 5: $0.13; 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 5: $0.18; Fits in one request
Gemma 4 31B: Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies; Fits in one request; Cached-input rate unavailable

Gemma 4 31B

Reasoning

Weight access

Claude Sonnet 5

Proprietary

Gemma 4 31B

Open Weight

License

Claude Sonnet 5

Proprietary

Gemma 4 31B

Open Weight

Release date

Claude Sonnet 5

2026-06-30

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 5 has the higher public score estimate, 64.78 versus 60.15, 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.

Self-host vs API cost

Estimates at 50,000 req/day · 1000 tokens/req average.

Claude Sonnet 5

API / mo$9,000

Self-host / moNot listed

Break-even—

Proprietary model — self-hosting not applicable.

Gemma 4 31B

API / mo$0

Self-host / mo$429

Break-even—

Model the full break-even

Benchmark evidence

The full public result ledger is available for audit without forcing a wide desktop table onto a phone.

Browse raw public benchmark evidence25 rows

Agentic

Terminal-Bench 3.0
Claude Sonnet 514.6%
Source
Gemma 4 31B—
Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Claude Sonnet 580.4%
Source
Gemma 4 31B—
Not directly comparable
BrowseComp
Claude Sonnet 584.7%
Source
Gemma 4 31B—
Not directly comparable
HLE w/ tools
Claude Sonnet 557.4%
Source
Gemma 4 31B—
Not directly comparable
OSWorld-Verified
Claude Sonnet 581.2%
Source
Gemma 4 31B—
Not directly comparable
Gert Labs
Claude Sonnet 5—
Gemma 4 31B35.26%
Source
Not directly comparable

Coding

SWE-bench Verified
Claude Sonnet 585.2%
Source
Gemma 4 31B—
Not directly comparable
SWE-bench Pro
Claude Sonnet 563.2%
Source
Gemma 4 31B—
Not directly comparable
SWE Multilingual
Claude Sonnet 578.3%
Source
Gemma 4 31B—
Not directly comparable
SWE Multimodal
Claude Sonnet 528.1%
Source
Gemma 4 31B—
Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Claude Sonnet 580.4%
Source
Gemma 4 31B—
Not directly comparable
FrontierCode 1.1 Main
Claude Sonnet 542.7%
Source
Gemma 4 31B—
Not directly comparable
cursorBench32
Claude Sonnet 561.5%
Source
Gemma 4 31B—
Not directly comparable
APEX-SWE
Claude Sonnet 546.4%
Source
Gemma 4 31B—
Not directly comparable
EEBench
Claude Sonnet 540.3%
Source
Gemma 4 31B—
Not directly comparable
3DCodeBench
Claude Sonnet 539.2%
Source
Gemma 4 31B—
Not directly comparable
SWE-Rebench
Claude Sonnet 5—
Gemma 4 31B41.6%
Source
Not directly comparable
React Native Evals
Claude Sonnet 5—
Gemma 4 31B75.2%
Source
Not directly comparable

Knowledge

HLE
Claude Sonnet 557.4%
Source
Gemma 4 31B26.5%
Source
Claude Sonnet 5 leads this result
HLE w/o tools
Claude Sonnet 543.2%
Source
Gemma 4 31B19.5%
Source
Claude Sonnet 5 leads this result
GPQA
Claude Sonnet 5—
Gemma 4 31B84.3%
Source
Not directly comparable
MMLU-Pro
Claude Sonnet 5—
Gemma 4 31B85.2%
Source
Not directly comparable

Multimodal

CharXiv
Claude Sonnet 588.3%
Source
Gemma 4 31B—
Not directly comparable
CharXiv w/o tools
Claude Sonnet 577%
Source
Gemma 4 31B—
Not directly comparable
MMMU-Pro
Claude Sonnet 5—
Gemma 4 31B76.9%
Source
Not directly comparable

Frequently asked questions

Which is better, Claude Sonnet 5 or Gemma 4 31B?

Claude Sonnet 5 has the higher public score estimate, 64.78 versus 60.15, 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 31B?

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 5 or Gemma 4 31B?

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 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 5 or Gemma 4 31B?

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 August 14, 2026

Watch Claude Sonnet 5 vs Gemma 4 31B

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 31B

Which one for your work

Long documents

Coding work

Agentic work

Chat turn cost

Cache-heavy agent loop cost

Repository review cost

What is actually comparable

Category results, on a stated basis

Knowledge

Agentic

Coding

Reasoning

Math

Multilingual

Multimodal

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

Self-host vs API cost

Benchmark evidence

Agentic

Coding

Knowledge

Multimodal

Frequently asked questions

Which is better, Claude Sonnet 5 or Gemma 4 31B?

Which is better for coding, Claude Sonnet 5 or Gemma 4 31B?

Which is better for agentic tasks, Claude Sonnet 5 or Gemma 4 31B?

Which costs less, Claude Sonnet 5 or Gemma 4 31B?

Which has the larger context window, Claude Sonnet 5 or Gemma 4 31B?

Related comparisons

Watch Claude Sonnet 5 vs Gemma 4 31B