AI Models · Open-Source vs Paid

Gemma 4 26B A4B Open vs Claude Opus 5.5 Paid

Gemma 4 26B A4B vs Claude Opus 5.5 compared — price per token, context window, multimodality, openness and which to choose. Can the open-source model replace the paid one? Full 2026 breakdown.

Claude Opus 5.5 — full profile ›

Prices & specs refreshed from live data · olud.ai

Open-model prices = cheapest provider via OpenRouter; official maker rates may be higher.

Gemma 4 26B A4BOpenGoogle
$0.07 /M input
$0.22 /M outputNo per-token fees if you self-host
TypeOpen-weight
Context window262K tokens
MultimodalYes
Self-hostYes
Claude Opus 5.5PaidAnthropic
$4 /M input
$20 /M outputManaged API (no infra to run)
TypeProprietary
Context window1M tokens
MultimodalYes
Self-hostNo
Choose Gemma 4 26B A4B if you want to self-host, keep your data private and skip per-token fees — it's open-weight and runs on your own hardware. Choose Claude Opus 5.5 if you want frontier capability through a managed API with zero infrastructure to run.

Gemma 4 26B A4B vs Claude Opus 5.5 specs

SpecGemma 4 26B A4BClaude Opus 5.5Winner
MakerGoogleAnthropic–
TypeOpen-weightProprietaryGemma 4 26B A4B
Context window262K tokens1M tokensClaude Opus 5.5
Input price$0.07/M · free self-host$4/MGemma 4 26B A4B
Output price$0.22/M · free self-host$20/MGemma 4 26B A4B
Vision / multimodalYesYes= Tie
Tool / function callingYesYes= Tie
Self-hostableYesNo (API only)Gemma 4 26B A4B
LicenseGemma LicenseProprietaryGemma 4 26B A4B

Price gap & when to choose each

91×cheaper per output token

Gemma 4 26B A4B is ~91× cheaper than Claude Opus 5.5 on output tokens ($0.22 vs $20 per M tokens).

Choose Gemma 4 26B A4B if…
  • You want to self-host or run on your cloud
  • You prioritize data privacy & control
  • You want the lowest operating costs
  • You are building open or reproducible AI
Choose Claude Opus 5.5 if…
  • You want frontier performance through a managed API
  • You need the longer 1M context window
  • You value reliability & ecosystem
  • You don't want to manage infrastructure

Feature comparison

CapabilityGemma 4 26B A4BClaude Opus 5.5
Open weights (downloadable)✓✗
Self-hostable✓✗
Runs fully offline✓✗
Vision / multimodal✓✓
Tool / function calling✓✓
1M+ context window✗✓

Benchmarks: Gemma 4 26B A4B vs Claude Opus 5.5

Independent benchmark scores measured by Artificial Analysis. Higher is better (except latency).

Gemma 4 26B A4B delivers 13× more intelligence per dollar.
Gemma 4 26B A4B
Claude Opus 5.5
Intelligence index
16.7
57.6
Coding index
39.3
–
GPQA
79.2%
–
Humanity's Last Exam
19.3%
61.4%
Long Context Reasoning
65.7%
84.7%
SciCode
40%
66.9%
IFBench
72.4%
–
τ²-Bench
43.6%
–
τ-Bench Banking
12%
–
Terminal-Bench
39%
–
Terminal-Bench Hard
13.6%
–
Speed
59.9 tok/s
97.4 tok/s
Latency
0.67s
544.9s
Intelligence per $
95.4
7.2

Benchmark data by Artificial Analysis.

How Gemma 4 26B A4B and Claude Opus 5.5 score

🏆 Best value & openness: Gemma 4 26B A4B (4.8 vs 3.1 / 5)
CriterionGemma 4 26B A4BClaude Opus 5.5
Cost-efficiency5.03.0
Context window4.05.0
Openness5.01.5
Self-hosting5.01.0
Multimodality5.05.0

Scores come from live data — output price (cost), context length, open vs closed weights (openness & self-hosting) and vision/tool support (multimodality). Raw task quality isn't scored here; it depends on your benchmark — see the verdict.

What each model is

Gemma 4 26B A4B Open

Google · Open-weight

Gemma 4 26B A4B IT is an instruction-tuned Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) model from Google DeepMind. Despite 25.2B total parameters, only 3.8B activate per token during inference — delivering near-31B quality at...

Claude Opus 5.5 Paid

Anthropic · Proprietary

Claude Opus 5.5 is Anthropic's flagship model for demanding reasoning, coding, and long-horizon agentic work, succeeding Claude Opus 5. It is particularly strong at multi-step changes in large codebases, code...

Other models in these families

These variants are tracked but not compared here — one page per family keeps the comparison readable.

Other variants tracked
Gemma 4 26B A4B (free)Gemma 4 31BGemma 4 31B (free)Gemma 3 27BGemma 3 4BGemma 3 12BGemma 2 27B
Other variants tracked
Claude Opus 5.5 (batch)Claude Opus 5Claude Opus 5 (batch)Claude Opus 4.8Claude Opus 4.8 (batch)Claude Opus 4.7Claude Opus 4.7 (batch)Claude Opus 4.6Claude Opus 4.6 (batch)Claude Opus 4.5Claude Opus 4.5 (batch)Claude Opus 4.1Claude Opus 4.1 (batch)

Frequently asked questions

Is Gemma 4 26B A4B as good as Claude Opus 5.5?

Gemma 4 26B A4B is open-weight and competitive on many tasks, but Claude Opus 5.5 may still lead on the hardest reasoning and agentic work. The gap keeps narrowing — benchmark both on your actual use case before deciding.

Can I run Gemma 4 26B A4B locally?

Yes. Gemma 4 26B A4B has open weights, so you can self-host it on your own GPUs or run it via a low-cost API. Claude Opus 5.5 is API-only and cannot be self-hosted.

How much cheaper is Gemma 4 26B A4B?

Gemma 4 26B A4B costs $0.22/M output vs $20/M for Claude Opus 5.5 — roughly 91x cheaper via API, and free if you self-host.

Gemma 4 26B A4B vs Claude Opus 5.5 — which should I pick in 2026?

Choose Gemma 4 26B A4B if you want to self-host, keep your data private and skip per-token fees — it's open-weight and runs on your own hardware. Choose Claude Opus 5.5 if you want frontier capability through a managed API with zero infrastructure to run.

People also compare

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Claude Opus 5.5GLM 5.3 vs Claude Opus 5.5MiMo-V2.6-Pro vs Claude Opus 5.5Hy3 vs Claude Opus 5.5Nemotron 3 Ultra vs Claude Opus 5.5Kimi K3 vs Claude Opus 5.5

Explore more open-source AI

Browse the full open-source model leaderboard, thousands of tools and live benchmarks — all in one place.

Open the leaderboard →