Compare / Qwen3.8-Max (0902) vs Gemini 4 Argon
Qwen3.8-Max (0902) vs Gemini 4 Argon
Which is cheaper, which is more capable, and which does better at each kind of work, from 73 results on 5 sources that measured both models.
AlibabaQwen3.8-Max (0902)
GoogleGemini 4 Argon
Qwen3.8-Max (0902) wins 914 too close to callGemini 4 Argon wins 50
Of the 73 results both models have, the better value on each. Results whose reported ranges overlap are too close to call.
Results as of 14 October 2026 (catalogue release 2026-10-14-7d7cf32c3f6d). See also Alibaba vs Google, every model from both labs.
Qwen3.8-Max (0902) or Gemini 4 Argon? The short answer
Pick Gemini 4 Argon: it scores higher (Spring Prompt overall 75 against 46) and costs less.
- Spring Prompt overall: Qwen3.8-Max (0902) 46, Gemini 4 Argon 75 (out of 100; how the score works).
- Gemini 4 Argon is cheaper to run: $0.011 against $0.026 per product listing on CatalogBench (2.3 times less).
- Gemini 4 Argon scores higher on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index: 52.6 against 45.4.
- Gemini 4 Argon is newer: released 13 Oct 2026, against 3 Aug 2026 for Qwen3.8-Max (0902).
- On our own benchmarks, on the results both models have: Gemini 4 Argon does better for product listings and marketing planning.
- On third-party benchmarks, on the results both models have: Gemini 4 Argon does better for agents and tool use, reasoning and knowledge, writing and sticking to the facts.
Head to head
46
Spring Prompt overall
75
45.4
Intelligence Index
52.6
$3.00
Price per million tokens, blendedlower is better
$4.00
1,000,000
Context window, tokens
1,048,576
Every fact side by side
| Qwen3.8-Max (0902) | Gemini 4 Argon | |
|---|---|---|
| Price per million tokens | $2.00 in · $6.00 out | $2.00 in · $10.00 out |
| Blended (3 in : 1 out) | $3.00 | $4.00 |
| Cheapest host, blended | – | – |
| Cost per product listing (CatalogBench) | $0.026 | $0.011 |
| Intelligence Index | 45.4 | 52.6 |
| Spring Prompt overall | 46 | 75 |
| Output speed, tokens a second | 40 | – |
| Context window | 1,000,000 tokens | 1,048,576 tokens |
| Released | 3 Aug 2026 | 13 Oct 2026 (newer) |
| Weights | Closed | Closed |
| Developer based in | China | the US |
Prices are the developer's list price where we have read it, otherwise the typical host on OpenRouter; see every model's price. Intelligence and speed from Artificial Analysis.
Which is better for what
Each model's rank among the models on sale today, for each kind of work, from our own benchmarks and licensed sources. Further right is better; the better rank is in green.
Product listingsTurning a sparse product feed and photos into listings that can go live
19 of 22
7 of 22
Decks from an analysisTurning a finished analysis into a deck you could present as it is
12 of 21
13 of 21
User surveysPlanning a user survey and reading its results without being misled
not measured
5 of 10
Marketing planningPlanning a year of ad spend without overspending
16 of 21
8 of 21
Agents and tool useMulti-step tasks with tools: support desks, coding agents, function calls
9 of 166
3 of 166
Professional workReal tasks from banking, consulting and law, business documents and freelance projects
18 of 51
not measured
Reasoning and knowledgeHard questions across science, maths and general knowledge
18 of 200
3 of 200
WritingWhat people prefer in blind comparisons, and judged writing quality
17 of 189
1 of 189
Sticking to the factsSummarising without inventing things, and factual answers
39 of 153
1 of 153
Speed under pressureGood decisions against a real clock (fast chess)
26 of 26
20 of 25
From our research
Every shared result
Each model's best result on every measure both have, grouped by benchmark, with the setting that produced it. Under each measure, every model that benchmark has measured is a grey tick, best to the right, so you can see where the two sit in the field. The headline measures of each benchmark come first; the rest are under "Show all". Green marks the better value; where a source reports ranges that overlap, neither is marked.
| Measure | Qwen3.8-Max (0902) | Gemini 4 Argon |
|---|---|---|
| CatalogBench measured by Spring Prompt · 3 results | ||
| Cost per productUS dollars, lower is better 16 · 12 of 22 measured | $0.0256 | $0.0109 |
| Reliably publish-ready% of products, higher is better 15 · 5 of 22 measured | 28.6% | 60.7% |
| Reliably publish-ready · sales brief% of products, higher is better 20 · 9 of 22 measured | 0.0% | 17.9% |
| DeckBench measured by Spring Prompt · 3 results | ||
| Cost per deckUS dollars, lower is better 12 · 10 of 21 measured | $0.15 | $0.11 |
| Deck ratingrating, higher is betterThe rating weighs each win by how strong the other deck was; the win rate counts wins against whichever decks a model happened to meet, so the two can disagree. 12 · 13 of 21 measured | 1,053 | 998 |
| Accurate decks% of tasks, higher is better 9 · 13 of 21 measured | 50.0% | 33.3% |
| ROASBench measured by Spring Prompt · 3 results | ||
| Overall scorescore out of 100, higher is better 16 · 8 of 21 measured | 25.4 | 47.0 |
| Audience scorescore out of 100, higher is better 19 · 8 of 21 measured | 39.7 | 65.5 |
| Business scorescore out of 100, higher is better 16 · 8 of 21 measured | 15.6 | 43.3 |
| Arena (formerly LMArena) reported by Arena (formerly LMArena) · 3 results | ||
| Overall · TextArena rating, higher is better 20 · 1 of 387 measured | 1,482 | 1,525high reasoning |
| Overall · Text factualityArena rating, higher is better 22 · 1 of 163 measured | 1,472 | 1,511high reasoning |
| Business, management and finance · TextArena rating, higher is better 16 · 1 of 380 measured | 1,484 | 1,522high reasoning |
| Artificial Analysis reported by Artificial Analysis · 3 results | ||
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence Indexindex score, higher is better 15 · 5 of 244 measured | 45.4 | 52.6high reasoning |
| Humanity's Last Exam% of questions, higher is better 25 · 3 of 243 measured | 43.1% | 57.1%high reasoning |
| Terminal-Bench 4.0% of tasks, higher is better 13 · 4 of 113 measured | 38.9% | 57.1%high reasoning |
Show all 73 results (58 more)
| Measure | Qwen3.8-Max (0902) | Gemini 4 Argon |
|---|---|---|
| CatalogBench measured by Spring Prompt · 28 results | ||
| Channel compliance% of products, higher is better 1 · 1 of 22 measured | 100.0% | 100.0% |
| Channel rules broken% of products, lower is better 12 · 1 of 22 measured | 0.6% | 0.0% |
| Channel rules broken · sales brief% of products, lower is better 21 · 1 of 22 measured | 3.0% | 0.0% |
| Claims to check% of products, lower is better 1 · 1 of 22 measured | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Claims to check · sales brief% of products, lower is better 15 · 1 of 22 measured | 1.3% | 0.0% |
| Conflicts caught% of conflicts, higher is better 1 · 1 of 22 measured | 100.0% | 100.0% |
| Content quality% of checks, higher is better 20 · 4 of 22 measured | 94.2% | 98.2% |
| Content quality · sales brief% of checks, higher is better 21 · 4 of 22 measured | 93.6% | 98.4% |
| Decision accuracy% of decisions, higher is better 18 · 5 of 22 measured | 93.3% | 97.8% |
| Failed outputs% of products, lower is better 21 · 1 of 22 measured | 3.6% | 0.0% |
| Failed outputs · sales brief% of products, lower is better 21 · 1 of 22 measured | 3.6% | 0.0% |
| Field accuracy% of missing fields, higher is better 21 · 3 of 22 measured | 90.3% | 94.7% |
| Invented values% of filled values, lower is better 17 · 14 of 22 measured | 2.7% | 1.7% |
| Missing UK information% of products, lower is better 1 · 1 of 22 measured | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Missing UK information · sales brief% of products, lower is better 1 · 1 of 22 measured | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Not findable% of products, lower is better 5 · 3 of 22 measured | 3.6% | 2.4% |
| Not findable · sales brief% of products, lower is better 2 · 2 of 22 measured | 1.8% | 1.8% |
| Publish-ready listings% of products, higher is better 14 · 5 of 22 measured | 50.0% | 70.8% |
| Publish-ready listings · sales brief% of products, higher is better 20 · 8 of 22 measured | 7.7% | 35.1% |
| Time per productseconds, lower is better 22 · 3 of 22 measured | 78.4 | 7.30 |
| Unsupported claimsclaims per product, lower is better 12 · 6 of 22 measured | 0.69 | 0.42 |
| Unsupported claims% of products, lower is better 12 · 9 of 22 measured | 26.8% | 16.1% |
| Unsupported claims · sales brief% of products, lower is better 21 · 12 of 22 measured | 84.5% | 63.1% |
| Unsupported claims · sales briefclaims per product, lower is better 21 · 12 of 22 measured | 4.52 | 1.98 |
| Wrong attributes% of products, lower is better 18 · 6 of 22 measured | 21.4% | 15.5% |
| Wrong attributes · sales brief% of products, lower is better 15 · 7 of 22 measured | 19.6% | 15.5% |
| Wrong category or variant% of products, lower is better 4 · 4 of 22 measured | 1.8% | 1.8% |
| Wrong category or variant · sales brief% of products, lower is better 11 · 4 of 22 measured | 2.4% | 1.8% |
| DeckBench measured by Spring Prompt · 14 results | ||
| Caveat dropped% of tasks, lower is better 12 · 1 of 21 measured | 16.7% | 0.0% |
| Clean layout% of tasks, higher is better 6 · 13 of 21 measured | 66.7% | 33.3% |
| Design quality% of the maximum, higher is better 10 · 16 of 21 measured | 67.0% | 55.2% |
| Draft figure quoted% of tasks, lower is better 12 · 17 of 21 measured | 33.3% | 50.0% |
| Findings missing% of tasks, lower is better 1 · 1 of 21 measured | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Head-to-head win rate% of comparisons, higher is betterThe rating weighs each win by how strong the other deck was; the win rate counts wins against whichever decks a model happened to meet, so the two can disagree. 12 · 13 of 21 measured | 64.6% | 57.0% |
| Layout defects% of tasks, lower is better 6 · 13 of 21 measured | 33.3% | 66.7% |
| Misleading metric used% of tasks, lower is better 1 · 1 of 21 measured | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Presentable decks% of tasks, higher is better 5 · 12 of 21 measured | 33.3% | 0.0% |
| Recommendation late or wrong% of tasks, lower is better 1 · 1 of 21 measured | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Slides needing work% of tasks, lower is better 10 · 15 of 21 measured | 50.0% | 66.7% |
| Time per deckseconds, lower is better 21 · 6 of 21 measured | 543 | 67.5 |
| Unsupported claims% of tasks, lower is better 11 · 11 of 21 measured | 16.7% | 16.7% |
| Unsupported numbers% of tasks, lower is better 1 · 1 of 21 measured | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| ROASBench measured by Spring Prompt · 6 results | ||
| Consistency scorescore out of 100, higher is better 15 · 5 of 21 measured | 19.3 | 34.7 |
| Contribution profitsimulated US dollars, higher is better 16 · 5 of 21 measured | $99,775 | $673,561 |
| Cost of a runUS dollars, lower is better 17 · 11 of 21 measured | $0.73 | $0.24 |
| Months over budgetmonths of 12, lower is better 19 · 1 of 21 measured | 2 | 0 |
| Planning scorescore out of 100, higher is better 11 · 1 of 21 measured | 54.8 | 55.4 |
| Return on ad spendprofit per $1 spent, higher is better 16 · 8 of 21 measured | $0.09 | $0.55 |
| Arena (formerly LMArena) reported by Arena (formerly LMArena) · 8 results | ||
| Confirmed task success · AgentIPS effect estimate, higher is better 20 · 3 of 48 measured | 0.05arena agent | 0.15high reasoning, arena agent |
| Creative writing · TextArena rating, higher is better 17 · 1 of 385 measured | 1,468 | 1,519high reasoning |
| Expert prompts · TextArena rating, higher is better 20 · 7 of 338 measured | 1,513 | 1,539high reasoning |
| Instruction following · TextArena rating, higher is better 25 · 1 of 387 measured | 1,474 | 1,528high reasoning |
| Praise over complaint · AgentIPS effect estimate, higher is better 20 · 4 of 48 measured | 0.03arena agent | 0.28high reasoning, arena agent |
| Steerability · AgentIPS effect estimate, higher is better 18 · 1 of 48 measured | 0.03arena agent | 0.13high reasoning, arena agent |
| Tool grounding · AgentIPS effect estimate, higher is better 43 · 29 of 48 measured | -0.01arena agent | 0.00high reasoning, arena agent |
| Writing, literature and language · TextArena rating, higher is better 18 · 1 of 386 measured | 1,472 | 1,522high reasoning |
| Artificial Analysis reported by Artificial Analysis · 2 results | ||
| Long-context reasoning (AA-LCR)% of questions, higher is better 36 · 44 of 234 measured | 80.3% | 79.7%high reasoning |
| SciCode% of problems, higher is better 37 · 3 of 114 measured | 52.1% | 61.8%high reasoning |
Compare them with other models
- Alibaba vs GoogleEvery model from both labs, best against best
- Qwen3.8-Max (0902) vs Claude Opus 5.5Most intelligent at $3–10 per million tokens
- Qwen3.8-Max (0902) vs Claude Haiku 5.5Cheapest with similar intelligence
- Gemini 4 Argon vs Claude Opus 5.5Most intelligent at $3–10 per million tokens
- Gemini 4 Argon vs Claude Sonnet 5.5Cheapest with similar intelligence
- Gemini 4 Argon vs GPT-6 AstraJust above overall
- Gemini 4 Argon vs Muse WonderJust below overall
Quick answers
Is Qwen3.8-Max (0902) better than Gemini 4 Argon?
Pick Gemini 4 Argon: it scores higher (Spring Prompt overall 75 against 46) and costs less.
Which is cheaper, Qwen3.8-Max (0902) or Gemini 4 Argon?
Gemini 4 Argon is cheaper to run: $0.011 against $0.026 per product listing on CatalogBench (2.3 times less).
Which is better for product listings, Qwen3.8-Max (0902) or Gemini 4 Argon?
Gemini 4 Argon ranks 7 of 22 models on sale for turning a sparse product feed and photos into listings that can go live, against 19 for Qwen3.8-Max (0902).
Which is better for decks from an analysis, Qwen3.8-Max (0902) or Gemini 4 Argon?
Qwen3.8-Max (0902) ranks 12 of 21 models on sale for turning a finished analysis into a deck you could present as it is, against 13 for Gemini 4 Argon.
Which is better for marketing planning, Qwen3.8-Max (0902) or Gemini 4 Argon?
Gemini 4 Argon ranks 8 of 21 models on sale for planning a year of ad spend without overspending, against 16 for Qwen3.8-Max (0902).
Which is better for agents and tool use, Qwen3.8-Max (0902) or Gemini 4 Argon?
Gemini 4 Argon ranks 3 of 166 models on sale for multi-step tasks with tools: support desks, coding agents, function calls, against 9 for Qwen3.8-Max (0902).
Which is better for reasoning and knowledge, Qwen3.8-Max (0902) or Gemini 4 Argon?
Gemini 4 Argon ranks 3 of 200 models on sale for hard questions across science, maths and general knowledge, against 18 for Qwen3.8-Max (0902).
Which has the bigger context window, Qwen3.8-Max (0902) or Gemini 4 Argon?
Gemini 4 Argon: 1,048,576 tokens, against 1,000,000 for Qwen3.8-Max (0902).
Run Qwen3.8-Max (0902) and Gemini 4 Argon on your own prompt
Benchmarks aren't your data. Try both side by side in the playground, with the cost of every answer.