Noometry

Model comparison

Claude Opus 4.6 vs Gemma 4 31B IT

Claude Opus 4.6 is the stronger model overall, scoring 58.3 to 43.2 on the Noometry Index. Gemma 4 31B IT costs 66× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Opus 4.6's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Last verified . 32 shared benchmarks.

Claude Opus 4.6 Anthropic

58.3

Rank #18 Confirmed

Gemma 4 31B IT Google

43.2

Rank #85 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 32 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Opus 4.6 scores higher in 8 categories and Gemma 4 31B IT in 1 category; 9 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in reasoning, where Claude Opus 4.6 leads 57.7 to 26.4.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is SimpleQA Verified: 47% for Claude Opus 4.6 and 10.4% for Gemma 4 31B IT.
  • Gemma 4 31B IT is cheaper at $0.09 / $0.34 per million input/output tokens, against $5 / $25 for Claude Opus 4.6.
  • Claude Opus 4.6 accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 262K.
  • Gemma 4 31B IT has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Claude Opus 4.6Gemma 4 31B IT
ProviderAnthropicGoogle
Noometry Index58.343.2
Released2026-02-042026-04-02
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window1M262K
Max output128K33K
Input $ / M tokens$5$0.09
Output $ / M tokens$25$0.34
Results tracked6835

Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry

Category by category

Coding Claude Opus 4.6 leads

Claude Opus 4.6: 57.7 (#15), Gemma 4 31B IT: 41.9 (#98)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6Gemma 4 31B IT
LMArena WebDev15461364
WeirdML78%52.3%
LMArena Coding15351459
ALE-Bench996.5925.5
SWE-bench Verified78.7%—
FrontierCode26.6%—
SWE-bench Verified (bash only)75.6%—
SWE-bench Multilingual72%—
SciCode—43.4%
GSO41.2%—
AlgoTune1.47—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Claude Opus 4.6: 51.0 (#4), Gemma 4 31B IT: —

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6Gemma 4 31B IT
Terminal-Bench79.8%—
APEX-Agents46.3%—
Remote Labor Index4.2%—
τ²-bench Banking27.3%—
Cybench93%—
DeepResearch Bench55.3%—
GBAEval44.1%—
LMArena Search1253—
METR Time Horizons78.9%—
Vending-Bench 28,018—

Reasoning Claude Opus 4.6 leads

Claude Opus 4.6: 57.7 (#21), Gemma 4 31B IT: 26.4 (#119)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6Gemma 4 31B IT
Kagi LLM Benchmark83.6%63.5%
NYT Connections (extended)92.1%70.6%
Chess Puzzles17%5%
Thematic Generalization80.6%53%
LMArena Hard Prompts15271448
DTBench91.2%82.7%
LMCA55.8%39.3%
Epoch Capabilities Index155.36142.74
ARC-AGI-269.2%—
SimpleBench67.6%—
ARC-AGI-194%—
CritPt—1.4%
EnigmaEval7.6%—
EBR-Bench12.7%—
Mystery Game Puzzles25%—
Surface Evolver Bench—30.6%
ForecastBench60—

Math Claude Opus 4.6 leads

Claude Opus 4.6: 62.7 (#25), Gemma 4 31B IT: 41.3 (#72)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6Gemma 4 31B IT
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202594.4%73.3%
LMArena Math15171464
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)66%—
FrontierMath Tier 426.8%—
MathArena Final-Answer Competitions78.5%—
ProofBench50%—
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)40.7%—
FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1)22.9%—

Knowledge Claude Opus 4.6 leads

Claude Opus 4.6: 61.8 (#23), Gemma 4 31B IT: 37.9 (#141)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6Gemma 4 31B IT
GPQA Diamond90.5%75.8%
SimpleQA Verified47%10.4%
Vectara Hallucination Rate12.2%7.4%
LMArena Expert15461465
Humanity's Last Exam34.4%—

Multimodal Gemma 4 31B IT leads

Claude Opus 4.6: 37.0 (#67), Gemma 4 31B IT: 41.0 (#32)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6Gemma 4 31B IT
LMArena Vision13161278
LMArena Document15071425
Furniture Assembly28.3%—

Multilingual Claude Opus 4.6 leads

Claude Opus 4.6: 58.2 (#4), Gemma 4 31B IT: 54.0 (#52)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6Gemma 4 31B IT
LMArena Non-English14901431
LMArena Chinese15511478
LMArena French15131436
LMArena Russian14971462
LMArena Spanish15121443
LMArena German1504—
LMArena Japanese1484—
LMArena Korean1465—

Instruction Following Claude Opus 4.6 leads

Claude Opus 4.6: 79.7 (#3), Gemma 4 31B IT: 75.6 (#58)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6Gemma 4 31B IT
LMArena Instruction Following15231433

Long Context Claude Opus 4.6 leads

Claude Opus 4.6: 48.1 (#13), Gemma 4 31B IT: 44.2 (#67)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6Gemma 4 31B IT
LMArena Longer Query15201446
CL-bench20.7%—
CL-bench Life17%—

Writing & Preference Claude Opus 4.6 leads

Claude Opus 4.6: 73.7 (#9), Gemma 4 31B IT: 60.7 (#92)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6Gemma 4 31B IT
LMArena Text15041443
LMArena Creative Writing15061416
EQ-Bench Creative Writing18091368
EQ-Bench 412231120
LMArena Multi-Turn15141452

Frequently asked questions

Is Claude Opus 4.6 better than Gemma 4 31B IT?

Claude Opus 4.6 is the stronger model overall, scoring 58.3 to 43.2 on the Noometry Index. Gemma 4 31B IT costs 66× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Opus 4.6's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Which is cheaper, Claude Opus 4.6 or Gemma 4 31B IT?

Gemma 4 31B IT is cheaper. It lists at $0.09 per million input tokens and $0.34 per million output tokens; Claude Opus 4.6 lists at $5 and $25.

Is Claude Opus 4.6 or Gemma 4 31B IT better for coding?

Claude Opus 4.6 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 57.7 versus 41.9 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Claude Opus 4.6 does, with 1M tokens against 262K.

How many benchmarks do Claude Opus 4.6 and Gemma 4 31B IT share?

32 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Opus 4.6 has 68 scored results on Noometry and Gemma 4 31B IT has 35.

Related comparisons

Go deeper