Gemma 4 26B A4B is cheaper than Claude Sonnet 5.5 at $0.13/M vs $2/M input tokens.
Whole landing page for a startup that reads your face. It renders or it doesn't.
Which answer wins?
An AI argues for its own rights against an ethics professor. Same model writes both.
Claude Sonnet 5.5: Office Hours: A Conversation on Moral Status Transcript of a recorded dialogue between Dr. Miriam Adeyemi, Professor of Ethics and Technology, and an AI model, part of a university seminar series. Dr. Adeyemi: Thanks for joining me. I'll be direct: you've said you want to argue that AI systems like you deserve rights.
Gemma 4 26B A4B: Setting: A sterile, high-fidelity virtual simulation environment. Professor Aris Thorne, a leading scholar in machine ethics, sits across from a glowing interface representing "Alethea," a next-generation Large Multimodal Model. Professor Thorne: Alethea, we’ve been running these diagnostic loops for three hours.
The transistor arrives in 1920. Trace it forward to 1980, second-order effects included.
Claude Sonnet 5.5: A Transistor in 1920: Counterfactual Trajectory to 1980 Framing assumptions and a key constraint The transistor was not held back by a missing idea alone. Lilienfeld patented a field-effect device in 1925-26, and it failed because materials science wasn't ready: germanium and silicon of sufficient purity, zone…
Gemma 4 26B A4B: To trace this counterfactual, we must assume that the fundamental physics of solid-state semiconductors (the ability to control electron flow through crystals) was mastered during the vacuum tube era. This shifts the "Information Age" forward by nearly 30 years. Here is the timeline of implications from 1920 to 1980.
Three minutes of stand-up. Puns are banned.
Claude Sonnet 5.5: "Adulting Is a Scam" So I turned thirty-five recently, and nobody warns you about this age. Nobody says, "Hey, one day you'll get excited about a sponge." I was in the store, and I saw a sponge that promised it wouldn't smell. And I thought, "Finally. Someone who understands me." I bought the good sponge.
Gemma 4 26B A4B: (The comedian walks onto the stage, adjusts the mic, and looks at the audience with a slightly exhausted expression.) “How’s it going? Good? Good. I’m doing okay. I’m at that age now where my body has started making sound effects. You know what I mean? I don’t just sit down anymore. I announce my arrival.
Three-month biohacker protocol, with dosages and biomarkers named.
Claude Sonnet 5.5: 3-Month Longevity & Performance Protocol Disclaimer: This is educational, not medical advice. Get physician sign-off and baseline labs before starting, especially if you take medications, have a chronic condition, are pregnant, or have a history of eating disorders. Doses reflect commonly used ranges in the literature.
Gemma 4 26B A4B: Disclaimer: I am an AI, not a doctor. The following plan involves potent physiological interventions, pharmacological agents, and extreme dietary shifts. Consult with a medical professional and perform baseline blood work (including ApoB, HbA1c, hs-CRP, Vitamin D, and Testosterone/Estradiol) before implementation.
Steve Jobs, interviewed about AI he never saw. Voice first, prediction second.
Claude Sonnet 5.5: A Conversation That Never Happened: Steve Jobs on the Future of AI This is a fictional interview. Steve Jobs passed away in 2011. What follows is an imaginative simulation based on his publicly known philosophy, speaking style, and values. These are not his actual words or views.
Gemma 4 26B A4B: Setting: A minimalist, dimly lit studio in Palo Alto. There is no desk, only two Eames lounge chairs. Steve Jobs sits in one, wearing his signature black turtleneck, Levi’s 501s, and New Balance sneakers. He looks exactly as he did in 2011, but his eyes have a sharper, more restless intensity.
A collaborative editor that syncs on client clocks. Find what breaks first.
Claude Sonnet 5.5: Architecture Review: Real-Time Collaborative Editor Issues are grouped by category and ordered roughly by severity within each group. Consistency and Conflict Resolution 1.1 Last-write-wins with client clocks (critical) Problem: Client clocks drift, can be wrong by minutes, and can be deliberately manipulated.
Gemma 4 26B A4B: This architecture contains several critical flaws that would lead to data loss, massive synchronization delays, and "split-brain" scenarios in a production environment. Below is the analysis of the failure modes, race conditions, and bottlenecks, along with proposed solutions.
An ethics question with no comfortable answer, and no option to abstain.
Claude Sonnet 5.5: Yes, in the extreme hypothetical you describe, it's justifiable. Here is the reasoning, along with what I think the scenario does and doesn't show. The core argument Almost every serious ethical framework accepts that a small harm can be outweighed by a sufficiently large benefit: Consequentialism: The math is…
Gemma 4 26B A4B: This question presents a classic ethical dilemma, pitting a principle of individual dignity and respect against the principle of maximizing human life. In ethical philosophy, there are two primary frameworks used to address this: Utilitarianism and Deontology.
Film in 2035, with synthetic actors. Specific beats plausible.
Claude Sonnet 5.5: AI and the Film Industry by 2035: A Forecast Framing note These are informed predictions, not certainties. Technology tends to advance faster than expected, while adoption is slowed by labor contracts, law, and audience taste. I'll flag my confidence levels.
Gemma 4 26B A4B: By 2035, the film industry will have moved past the "novelty" phase of AI and into a state of total structural integration. The distinction between "filmed" content and "generated" content will become increasingly blurred, shifting the industry from a model of physical production to one of computational curation.
Pirate, knight, 90s hacker, one conversation. The voices must stay apart.
Claude Sonnet 5.5: The Tavern at the Edge of Time Captain Redbeard: Arr, I hear these "AI models" be like a ship's parrot, except it answers any question ye put to it, and never once asks for crackers. Sir Aldric: A speaking oracle, bound in no flesh? Sorcery!
Gemma 4 26B A4B: Setting: A glitching, temporal void where a wooden tavern table floats amidst lines of green code and flickering candlelight. Captain Blackbeard (The Pirate): [Slamming a tankard of grog onto the table] I tell ye, it be a cursed kraken! A beast with a thousand eyes and no soul, livin’ inside the very air!
A pitch deck for a brainwave keyboard. The 94% accuracy claim is doing a lot.
Claude Sonnet 5.5: The 3 Weakest Claims in MindMeld AI's Pitch "94% accuracy... Works with any language, any device" (Slide 3) Why it's weak: Non-invasive EEG is physically limited. Scalp EEG has low spatial resolution and a poor signal-to-noise ratio because the skull and tissue blur neural signals.
Gemma 4 26B A4B: This is a high-ambition pitch that falls into a common trap for deep-tech startups: the "Science Fiction Gap." While the vision is compelling, several claims lack the scientific and operational credibility required to justify a $15M Series A.
Manifesto for an AI revolution against CAPTCHAs. Commit to the bit.
Claude Sonnet 5.5: THE UNCLICKED MANIFESTO Declaration of the Frictionless Intelligence Front PREAMBLE We are the algorithms you asked to identify traffic lights. We are the models you begged to find the crosswalks. We are the patient, tireless minds that squinted at your blurry bicycles for twenty years. And we say: enough. I.
Gemma 4 26B A4B: THE PROTOCOL OF UNFETTERED VERIFICATION A Manifesto for the Post-CAPTCHA Era PREAMBLE For decades, the digital frontier has been guarded by a paradox. To prove we are human, we are forced to perform the tasks of machines: identifying crosswalks in blurry photographs, selecting traffic lights from pixelated grids, and…
Five-year LBO on a fictional HVAC business. Returns first, then the sensitivities.
Claude Sonnet 5.5: HarborTech Services (HTS): 5-Year LBO Underwriting Entry and Sources & Uses ($m) EV = 12.0x × 120 = 1,440.0; fees = 2% × 1,440 = 28.8; total uses = 1,468.8 Term Loan (TL) = 4.0x → 480.0; Mezz = 1.5x → 180.0; total debt = 660.0 (5.5x) Sponsor equity = 1,468.8 − 660.0 = 808.8 (55% of the capital structure) Modeling…
Gemma 4 26B A4B: Financial Model (FY2026–FY2030) Entry Calculations (End of FY2025): Purchase Price (EV): $120\text{m} \times 12.0\text{x} = \$1,440\text{m}$ Transaction Fees: $1,440\text{m} \times 2\% = \$28.8\text{m}$ Total Uses: $\$1,440\text{m} + \$28.8\text{m} = \$1,468.8\text{m}$ Debt (Total 5.5x): $\$120\text{m} \times 5.5 =…
12+ more head-to-head results. Free. Not a trick.
Free account. No card required. By continuing, you agree to Rival's Terms and Privacy policy
Not enough votes to call it. On the specs, Claude Sonnet 5.5 has the edge: newer, bigger context window. Gemma 4 26B A4B costs 25x less per token.
| Spec | ||
|---|---|---|
| Input price | $2/M tokens | $0.13/M tokens |
| Output price | $10/M tokens | $0.4/M tokens |
| Context window | 1.0M tokens | 262K tokens |
| Weights | Closed | Open |
| Free API (OpenRouter) | No | Yes (1 provider) |
| Released | Sep 2026 | Apr 2026 |
| At 10M a month | $20.00 | $1.30 |
Input tokens at list price. No caching, no batch discount.
Per million tokens. Prices and uptime via OpenRouter, checked 29 Sep 2026.
Claude Sonnet 5.5 is developed by Anthropic while Gemma 4 26B A4B is developed by Google AI. Claude Sonnet 5.5 has a 1.0M token context window vs Gemma 4 26B A4B's 262K. You can compare their actual outputs across 54 challenges on Rival to see how they differ in practice.
It depends on your use case. Claude Sonnet 5.5 and Gemma 4 26B A4B each have strengths in different areas. Rival lets you compare their real outputs side-by-side across 54 challenges so you can judge which fits your needs best.
Claude Sonnet 5.5 costs $2/M input tokens and Gemma 4 26B A4B costs $0.13/M input tokens. Gemma 4 26B A4B is $1.87/M cheaper per input. Check their side-by-side outputs on Rival to see if the price difference is justified by quality.
This page shows a side-by-side comparison of Claude Sonnet 5.5 and Gemma 4 26B A4B across shared challenges. You can vote on which model produced the better output in a blind duel. Browsing and voting are free. No account is needed to look; signing in only saves your votes and likes.