Which model is better: Claude Opus 5.5 or Gemma 4 31B IT?
Gemma 4 31B IT is 97.0% cheaper for input tokens ($0.12 vs. $4.00 per 1M tokens) and $0.36 vs. $20.00 for output tokens (33.3x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Gemma 4 31B IT delivers lower response latency at 115ms TTFT (565ms faster than Claude Opus 5.5) with 155 vs. 95 tok/s throughput. Claude Opus 5.5 leads coding evaluations at 89.9% SWE-bench Verified vs. 59.2% for Gemma 4 31B IT and 93.2% vs. 71.2% on GPQA Diamond.
Verified daily via automated API latency tests and official documentation.
Zero-Shot RAG Verified
Verified Performance & Unit Economics Delta (12 Dimensions)
Daily synchronized metrics across token pricing, prompt cache economics, latency, throughput, and 5 capability benchmarks.
Metric / Dimension
Claude Opus 5.5
Gemma 4 31B IT
Net Delta / Advantage
Input Cost / 1M Tokens
$4.00
$0.12
Gemma 4 31B IT is 33.3x cheaper
Output Cost / 1M Tokens
$20.00
$0.36
Gemma 4 31B IT (98.2% lower)
Prompt Cache Read / 1M
$0.200
$0.030
Gemma 4 31B IT is 6.7x cheaper
Prompt Cache Write / 1M
$5.00
$0.12
Gemma 4 31B IT is 41.7x cheaper
Context Window (Max Output)
1,024k (128k out)
131k (16k out)
Claude Opus 5.5 (7.8x larger context)
Avg TTFT Response Latency
680ms
115ms
Gemma 4 31B IT (565ms faster)
Generation Speed (Throughput)
95 tok/s
155 tok/s
Gemma 4 31B IT (+60 tok/s faster)
SWE-bench Verified (Coding)
89.9%
59.2%
Claude Opus 5.5 (+30.7% lead)
GPQA Diamond (PhD STEM)
93.2%
71.2%
Claude Opus 5.5 (+22.0% lead)
MMLU-Pro (Multi-Discipline)
92.1%
82.8%
Claude Opus 5.5 (+9.3% lead)
MATH-500 (Quantitative Logic)
98%
91.5%
Claude Opus 5.5 (+6.5% lead)
Inference Value Score (IVR)
57.8 / 100
80.3 / 100
Gemma 4 31B IT (+22.5 pts)
Interactive Monthly Token Economics & ROI Forecaster
Model production workloads across prompt, completion, and cached context tokens, or switch models on the fly.
Choose Claude Opus 5.5 (Anthropic) for top-ranked frontier intelligence leader for autonomous multi-step agentic coding, repository-scale migrations, and complex scientific reasoning at a 40% lower workload cost than Opus 5 — offering a 1,024k context window, 680ms TTFT, and $4.00/1M input pricing ($0.200/1M cached reads).
Which is cheaper: Claude Opus 5.5 or Gemma 4 31B IT?
Gemma 4 31B IT is cheaper at $0.12/1M input tokens ($0.36/1M output) compared to $4.00/1M input ($20.00/1M output) for Claude Opus 5.5.
Which model has lower TTFT latency and higher tok/s throughput: Claude Opus 5.5 or Gemma 4 31B IT?
Gemma 4 31B IT delivers faster first-token latency at 115ms TTFT (155 tok/s throughput) compared to 680ms TTFT (95 tok/s) for Claude Opus 5.5.
How do Claude Opus 5.5 and Gemma 4 31B IT compare on SWE-bench coding and GPQA Diamond reasoning?
On SWE-bench Verified software engineering, Claude Opus 5.5 scores 89.9% versus 59.2% for Gemma 4 31B IT. On GPQA Diamond graduate-level STEM reasoning, Claude Opus 5.5 scores 93.2% versus 71.2% for Gemma 4 31B IT (and 98% vs 91.5% on MATH-500).
When should you choose Claude Opus 5.5?
Choose Claude Opus 5.5 (Anthropic) for top-ranked frontier intelligence leader for autonomous multi-step agentic coding, repository-scale migrations, and complex scientific reasoning at a 40% lower workload cost than Opus 5 — offering a 1,024k context window, 680ms TTFT, and $4.00/1M input pricing ($0.200/1M cached reads).
When should you choose Gemma 4 31B IT?
Choose Gemma 4 31B IT (Google) for self-hosted VPC inference, fine-tuned domain agents, sovereign healthcare/finance workloads, and low-latency local code generation — offering a 131k context window, 115ms TTFT, and $0.12/1M input pricing ($0.030/1M cached reads).
