Which model is better: Claude 3.7 Sonnet or Gemma 4 31B IT?
Gemma 4 31B IT is 96.0% cheaper for input tokens ($0.12 vs. $3.00 per 1M tokens) and $0.36 vs. $15.00 for output tokens (25.0x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Gemma 4 31B IT delivers lower response latency at 115ms TTFT (425ms faster than Claude 3.7 Sonnet) with 155 vs. 72 tok/s throughput. Claude 3.7 Sonnet leads coding evaluations at 70.3% SWE-bench Verified vs. 59.2% for Gemma 4 31B IT and 78.5% 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 3.7 Sonnet
Gemma 4 31B IT
Net Delta / Advantage
Input Cost / 1M Tokens
$3.00
$0.12
Gemma 4 31B IT is 25.0x cheaper
Output Cost / 1M Tokens
$15.00
$0.36
Gemma 4 31B IT (97.6% lower)
Prompt Cache Read / 1M
$0.300
$0.030
Gemma 4 31B IT is 10.0x cheaper
Prompt Cache Write / 1M
$3.75
$0.12
Gemma 4 31B IT is 31.3x cheaper
Context Window (Max Output)
205k (64k out)
131k (16k out)
Claude 3.7 Sonnet (1.6x larger context)
Avg TTFT Response Latency
540ms
115ms
Gemma 4 31B IT (425ms faster)
Generation Speed (Throughput)
72 tok/s
155 tok/s
Gemma 4 31B IT (+83 tok/s faster)
SWE-bench Verified (Coding)
70.3%
59.2%
Claude 3.7 Sonnet (+11.1% lead)
GPQA Diamond (PhD STEM)
78.5%
71.2%
Claude 3.7 Sonnet (+7.3% lead)
MMLU-Pro (Multi-Discipline)
88%
82.8%
Claude 3.7 Sonnet (+5.2% lead)
MATH-500 (Quantitative Logic)
96.2%
91.5%
Claude 3.7 Sonnet (+4.7% lead)
Inference Value Score (IVR)
54.3 / 100
80.3 / 100
Gemma 4 31B IT (+26 pts)
Interactive Monthly Token Economics & ROI Forecaster
Model production workloads across prompt, completion, and cached context tokens, or switch models on the fly.
Which is cheaper: Claude 3.7 Sonnet or Gemma 4 31B IT?
Gemma 4 31B IT is cheaper at $0.12/1M input tokens ($0.36/1M output) compared to $3.00/1M input ($15.00/1M output) for Claude 3.7 Sonnet.
Which model has lower TTFT latency and higher tok/s throughput: Claude 3.7 Sonnet or Gemma 4 31B IT?
Gemma 4 31B IT delivers faster first-token latency at 115ms TTFT (155 tok/s throughput) compared to 540ms TTFT (72 tok/s) for Claude 3.7 Sonnet.
How do Claude 3.7 Sonnet and Gemma 4 31B IT compare on SWE-bench coding and GPQA Diamond reasoning?
On SWE-bench Verified software engineering, Claude 3.7 Sonnet scores 70.3% versus 59.2% for Gemma 4 31B IT. On GPQA Diamond graduate-level STEM reasoning, Claude 3.7 Sonnet scores 78.5% versus 71.2% for Gemma 4 31B IT (and 96.2% vs 91.5% on MATH-500).
When should you choose Claude 3.7 Sonnet?
Choose Claude 3.7 Sonnet (Anthropic) for full-stack repository development, complex code refactoring, and agentic tool use with predictable prompt cache economics — offering a 204k context window, 540ms TTFT, and $3.00/1M input pricing ($0.300/1M 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).
