Model comparison
Claude Opus 5 vs Gemma 2 9B
Claude Opus 5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 67.8 to 25.9 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 21 shared benchmarks.
GoogleSummary
- They share 21 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Opus 5 scores higher in 8 categories and Gemma 2 9B in 0 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where Claude Opus 5 leads 86.2 to 9.9.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 98.9% for Claude Opus 5 and 0.6% for Gemma 2 9B.
- Gemma 2 9B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Claude Opus 5 | Gemma 2 9B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | |
| Noometry Index | 67.8 | 25.9 |
| Released | 2026-07-24 | 2024-06-24 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | 1M | — |
| Max output | 128K | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | $5 | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | $25 | — |
| Results tracked | 57 | 35 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Claude Opus 5 leads
Claude Opus 5: 67.5 (#5), Gemma 2 9B: 29.4 (#304)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | Gemma 2 9B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1534 | 1173 |
| DeepSWE | 73.6% | — |
| FrontierCode | 53.4% | — |
| CursorBench | 46.6% | — |
| LMArena WebDev | 1691 | — |
| FrontierSWE | 52% | — |
| SciCode | 56.4% | — |
| WeirdML | 91.8% | — |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | — | 34.7% |
| LiveBench Coding | — | 22.5% |
| BigCodeBench Complete | — | 40.6% |
| ALE-Bench | 2,165 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Claude Opus 5: 55.6 (#1), Gemma 2 9B: —
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | Gemma 2 9B |
|---|---|---|
| APEX-Agents | 65.8% | — |
| OSWorld 2.0 | 31.4% | — |
| τ²-bench Banking | 48.7% | — |
| PostTrainBench | 35% | — |
| BALROG | 63.4% | — |
| GBAEval | 79.6% | — |
| GDP.pdf | 24% | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | 11,182 | — |
Reasoning Claude Opus 5 leads
Claude Opus 5: 77.2 (#4), Gemma 2 9B: 15.9 (#309)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | Gemma 2 9B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1526 | 1171 |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 162.78 | 119.83 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 90.4% | — |
| SimpleBench | 80.6% | — |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 94.3% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 97.5% | — |
| CritPt | 29.1% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | 42% | — |
| EBR-Bench | 45.7% | — |
| LiveBench Reasoning | — | 15.2% |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 59% | — |
| DTBench | 97.9% | — |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | — | 36.4% |
| LMCA | 64.5% | — |
| Bench to the Future 3 | 0.12 | — |
| LiveBench | — | 28.7% |
| PIQA | — | 83.7% |
Math Claude Opus 5 leads
Claude Opus 5: 86.2 (#8), Gemma 2 9B: 9.9 (#318)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | Gemma 2 9B |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 98.9% | 0.6% |
| LMArena Math | 1531 | 1183 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 85.6% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 73.2% | — |
| ProofBench | 99% | — |
| LiveBench Math | — | 19.8% |
| MATH Level 5 | — | 21% |
| GSM8K | — | 84.9% |
Knowledge Claude Opus 5 leads
Claude Opus 5: 66.8 (#9), Gemma 2 9B: 9.7 (#305)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | Gemma 2 9B |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 93.9% | 27.5% |
| LMArena Expert | 1557 | 1147 |
| SimpleQA Verified | 59.9% | — |
| BoolQ | — | 85.7% |
| MMLU | — | 72.1% |
Multimodal Not comparable
Claude Opus 5: 50.8 (#8), Gemma 2 9B: —
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | Gemma 2 9B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1319 | — |
| Blueprint-Bench 2 | 30.4% | — |
| Furniture Assembly | 60.8% | — |
| LMArena Document | 1516 | — |
Multilingual Claude Opus 5 leads
Claude Opus 5: 58.8 (#4), Gemma 2 9B: 36.6 (#238)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | Gemma 2 9B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1501 | 1188 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1574 | 1185 |
| LMArena French | 1519 | 1190 |
| LMArena German | 1524 | 1186 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1516 | 1144 |
| LMArena Korean | 1521 | 1137 |
| LMArena Russian | 1507 | 1200 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1519 | 1200 |
Instruction Following Claude Opus 5 leads
Claude Opus 5: 79.2 (#7), Gemma 2 9B: 57.6 (#269)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | Gemma 2 9B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1517 | 1178 |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | — | 52.6% |
Long Context Claude Opus 5 leads
Claude Opus 5: 46.5 (#21), Gemma 2 9B: 36.3 (#233)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | Gemma 2 9B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1515 | 1197 |
Writing & Preference Claude Opus 5 leads
Claude Opus 5: 79.2 (#1), Gemma 2 9B: 32.1 (#281)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | Gemma 2 9B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1507 | 1207 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1491 | 1206 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 2133 | 841 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1499 | 1193 |
| EQ-Bench 4 | 1385 | — |
| LiveBench Language | — | 25.5% |
Frequently asked questions
Is Claude Opus 5 better than Gemma 2 9B?
Claude Opus 5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 67.8 to 25.9 on the Noometry Index.
Is Claude Opus 5 or Gemma 2 9B better for coding?
Claude Opus 5 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 67.5 versus 29.4 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Claude Opus 5 and Gemma 2 9B share?
21 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Opus 5 has 57 scored results on Noometry and Gemma 2 9B has 35.