Model comparison
Claude Opus 4.6 vs Gemma 2B
Claude Opus 4.6 is the stronger model overall, scoring 58.3 to 29.1 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 12 shared benchmarks.
GoogleSummary
- They share 12 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Opus 4.6 scores higher in 7 categories and Gemma 2B in 0 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in writing & preference, where Claude Opus 4.6 leads 73.7 to 24.1.
- Gemma 2B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Claude Opus 4.6 | Gemma 2B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | |
| Noometry Index | 58.3 | 29.1 |
| Released | 2026-02-04 | 2024-02-21 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | 1M | — |
| Max output | 128K | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | $5 | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | $25 | — |
| Results tracked | 68 | 23 |
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 2B: 28.9 (#300)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.6 | Gemma 2B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1535 | 1010 |
| SWE-bench Verified | 78.7% | — |
| FrontierCode | 26.6% | — |
| SWE-bench Verified (bash only) | 75.6% | — |
| LMArena WebDev | 1546 | — |
| SWE-bench Multilingual | 72% | — |
| GSO | 41.2% | — |
| WeirdML | 78% | — |
| ALE-Bench | 996.5 | — |
| AlgoTune | 1.47 | — |
| HumanEval+ | — | 20.7% |
| MBPP+ | — | 34.1% |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Claude Opus 4.6: 51.0 (#4), Gemma 2B: —
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.6 | Gemma 2B |
|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench | 79.8% | — |
| APEX-Agents | 46.3% | — |
| Remote Labor Index | 4.2% | — |
| τ²-bench Banking | 27.3% | — |
| Cybench | 93% | — |
| DeepResearch Bench | 55.3% | — |
| GBAEval | 44.1% | — |
| LMArena Search | 1253 | — |
| METR Time Horizons | 78.9% | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | 8,018 | — |
Reasoning Claude Opus 4.6 leads
Claude Opus 4.6: 57.7 (#21), Gemma 2B: 17.9 (#275)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.6 | Gemma 2B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1527 | 989 |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 155.36 | 93.57 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 69.2% | — |
| SimpleBench | 67.6% | — |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 83.6% | — |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 92.1% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 94% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | 17% | — |
| EnigmaEval | 7.6% | — |
| Thematic Generalization | 80.6% | — |
| EBR-Bench | 12.7% | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 25% | — |
| DTBench | 91.2% | — |
| LMCA | 55.8% | — |
| BIG-Bench Hard | — | 35.2% |
| ForecastBench | 60 | — |
| HellaSwag | — | 71.4% |
| PIQA | — | 77.3% |
| WinoGrande | — | 65.4% |
Math Claude Opus 4.6 leads
Claude Opus 4.6: 62.7 (#25), Gemma 2B: 27.6 (#237)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.6 | Gemma 2B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1517 | 1009 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 66% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 26.8% | — |
| MathArena Final-Answer Competitions | 78.5% | — |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 94.4% | — |
| ProofBench | 50% | — |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 40.7% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | 22.9% | — |
| GSM8K | — | 17.7% |
Knowledge Not comparable
Claude Opus 4.6: 61.8 (#23), Gemma 2B: —
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.6 | Gemma 2B |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 90.5% | — |
| Humanity's Last Exam | 34.4% | — |
| SimpleQA Verified | 47% | — |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 12.2% | — |
| LMArena Expert | 1546 | — |
| ARC (AI2) Challenge | — | 42.1% |
| BoolQ | — | 69.4% |
| MMLU | — | 42.3% |
| TriviaQA | — | 53.2% |
Multimodal Not comparable
Claude Opus 4.6: 37.0 (#67), Gemma 2B: —
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.6 | Gemma 2B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1316 | — |
| Furniture Assembly | 28.3% | — |
| LMArena Document | 1507 | — |
Multilingual Claude Opus 4.6 leads
Claude Opus 4.6: 58.2 (#4), Gemma 2B: 23.1 (#289)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.6 | Gemma 2B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1490 | 958 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1551 | 986 |
| LMArena Russian | 1497 | 937 |
| LMArena French | 1513 | — |
| LMArena German | 1504 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1484 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1465 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1512 | — |
Instruction Following Claude Opus 4.6 leads
Claude Opus 4.6: 79.7 (#3), Gemma 2B: 48.8 (#297)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.6 | Gemma 2B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1523 | 971 |
Long Context Claude Opus 4.6 leads
Claude Opus 4.6: 48.1 (#13), Gemma 2B: 29.9 (#286)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.6 | Gemma 2B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1520 | 981 |
| CL-bench | 20.7% | — |
| CL-bench Life | 17% | — |
Writing & Preference Claude Opus 4.6 leads
Claude Opus 4.6: 73.7 (#9), Gemma 2B: 24.1 (#303)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.6 | Gemma 2B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1504 | 1002 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1506 | 986 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1514 | 945 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1809 | — |
| EQ-Bench 4 | 1223 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Claude Opus 4.6 better than Gemma 2B?
Claude Opus 4.6 is the stronger model overall, scoring 58.3 to 29.1 on the Noometry Index.
Is Claude Opus 4.6 or Gemma 2B better for coding?
Claude Opus 4.6 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 57.7 versus 28.9 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Claude Opus 4.6 and Gemma 2B share?
12 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Opus 4.6 has 68 scored results on Noometry and Gemma 2B has 23.