claude-opus-5-5
Checking current pricing…
Chat comparison
claude-opus-5-5vsgemma4:31b
Compare the things that matter before you build: current price, capabilities, and latest aggregated LLM7 statistics.
Current pricing
See the cost difference clearly
gemma4:31b
Checking current pricing…
What's different
Only capabilities that differ between these models are listed. Green highlights the broader supported option or larger context window.
Context window
claude-opus-5-5Better fit
1,000,000 tokens
gemma4:31b
262,000 tokens
Input formats
claude-opus-5-5
text, image, json
gemma4:31b
text
Vision
claude-opus-5-5Better fit
Supported
gemma4:31b
Not supported
Reasoning
claude-opus-5-5Better fit
Supported
gemma4:31b
Not supported
Latest LLM7 statistics
Recent aggregated percentages and response-time metrics from LLM7, not a global model benchmark or traffic disclosure.
Recent stability
claude-opus-5-5
99.64%
gemma4:31b
99.78%
Average response time
claude-opus-5-5
11,618.48 ms
gemma4:31b
5,625.04 ms
P95 API latency
claude-opus-5-5
60,000 ms
gemma4:31b
30,000 ms
Side-by-side trends
Shared charts make the observed differences easier to read. Metrics without enough history stay hidden.
Request success rate
Both models on the same scale
claude-opus-5-5: 100%gemma4:31b: 100%
Average API latency
Both models on the same scale
claude-opus-5-5: 9,798 msgemma4:31b: 6,970 ms
P95 API latency
Both models on the same scale
claude-opus-5-5: 30,000 msgemma4:31b: 30,000 ms
Estimate your workload
Published rates are loaded from the pricing API; per-request quotes are billed from actual provider usage.
Checking current pricing…
Checking current pricing…
Quick take
- claude-opus-5-5 has a larger context window.
- claude-opus-5-5 supports image input while the other model does not.
- The recent stability rates are too close to distinguish meaningfully.
- gemma4:31b recorded a lower observed p95 API latency on LLM7 during this period.