Compare / Claude Haiku 5.5 vs Gemini 4 Argon
Claude Haiku 5.5 vs Gemini 4 Argon
Which is cheaper, which is more capable, and which does better at each kind of work, from 92 results on 6 sources that measured both models.
AnthropicClaude Haiku 5.5
GoogleGemini 4 Argon
Claude Haiku 5.5 wins 3614 too close to callGemini 4 Argon wins 42
Of the 92 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 Anthropic vs Google, every model from both labs.
Claude Haiku 5.5 or Gemini 4 Argon? The short answer
Pick Gemini 4 Argon if quality matters most: it scores higher (Spring Prompt overall 75 against 41). Pick Claude Haiku 5.5 if cost matters more: it costs 9.0 times less per product listing on CatalogBench.
- Spring Prompt overall: Claude Haiku 5.5 41, Gemini 4 Argon 75 (out of 100; how the score works).
- Claude Haiku 5.5 is cheaper to run: $0.001 against $0.011 per product listing on CatalogBench (9.0 times less).
- Gemini 4 Argon scores higher on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index: 52.6 against 43.4.
- Gemini 4 Argon is newer: released 13 Oct 2026, against 7 Oct 2026 for Claude Haiku 5.5.
- On our own benchmarks, on the results both models have: Claude Haiku 5.5 does better for decks from an analysis and user surveys; Gemini 4 Argon 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 and reasoning and knowledge.
Head to head
41
Spring Prompt overall
75
43.4
Intelligence Index
52.6
$0.20
Price per million tokens, blendedlower is better
$4.00
1,000,000
Context window, tokens
1,048,576
Every fact side by side
| Claude Haiku 5.5 | Gemini 4 Argon | |
|---|---|---|
| Price per million tokens | $0.10 in · $0.50 out | $2.00 in · $10.00 out |
| Blended (3 in : 1 out) | $0.20 | $4.00 |
| Cheapest host, blended | – | – |
| Cost per product listing (CatalogBench) | $0.001 | $0.011 |
| Intelligence Index | 43.4 | 52.6 |
| Spring Prompt overall | 41 | 75 |
| Output speed, tokens a second | 239 | – |
| Context window | 1,000,000 tokens | 1,048,576 tokens |
| Released | 7 Oct 2026 | 13 Oct 2026 (newer) |
| Weights | Closed | Closed |
| Developer based in | the US | 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
13 of 22
7 of 22
Decks from an analysisTurning a finished analysis into a deck you could present as it is
11 of 21
13 of 21
User surveysPlanning a user survey and reading its results without being misled
4 of 10
5 of 10
Marketing planningPlanning a year of ad spend without overspending
19 of 21
8 of 21
Agents and tool useMulti-step tasks with tools: support desks, coding agents, function calls
22 of 166
3 of 166
Reasoning and knowledgeHard questions across science, maths and general knowledge
21 of 200
3 of 200
WritingWhat people prefer in blind comparisons, and judged writing quality
not measured
1 of 189
Sticking to the factsSummarising without inventing things, and factual answers
not measured
1 of 153
Speed under pressureGood decisions against a real clock (fast chess)
17 of 25
20 of 25
Their slides, side by side
The same brief for both: Manchester store investment review for Hearthside Coffee, an invented company. First slide of each deck from DeckBench.
From our research
- AI Checkpoint: Sol’s new fast lane 9 Oct 2026
- Claude Haiku 5.5 Is Far Better Than Haiku 4.5 at a Tenth of the Price. GPT-6 Luna Still Beats It at Business Work. 8 Oct 2026
- Gemini 4 Argon review: Opus-level product data at a quarter of the cost, until you ask it to sell 14 Oct 2026
- Muse Wonder review: good analysis, work that still needs checking 13 Oct 2026
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 | Claude Haiku 5.5 | Gemini 4 Argon |
|---|---|---|
| BulletBench measured by Spring Prompt · 3 results | ||
| Cost per game · Blitz 3+2US dollars, lower is better 4 · 10 of 15 measured | $0.0164 | $0.12 |
| Cost per game · Bullet 60sUS dollars, lower is better 6 · 10 of 30 measured | $0.0019no reasoning | $0.0036 |
| Ladder Elo · Bullet 60sladder Elo, higher is better 23 · 26 of 30 measured | 310no reasoning | 147 |
| CatalogBench measured by Spring Prompt · 3 results | ||
| Cost per productUS dollars, lower is better 2 · 12 of 22 measured | $0.0012 | $0.0109 |
| Reliably publish-ready% of products, higher is better 16 · 5 of 22 measured | 26.8% | 60.7% |
| Reliably publish-ready · sales brief% of products, higher is better 11 · 9 of 22 measured | 10.7% | 17.9% |
| DeckBench measured by Spring Prompt · 3 results | ||
| Cost per deckUS dollars, lower is better 2 · 10 of 21 measured | $0.0091 | $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. 11 · 13 of 21 measured | 1,166 | 998 |
| Accurate decks% of tasks, higher is better 13 · 13 of 21 measured | 33.3% | 33.3% |
| ROASBench measured by Spring Prompt · 3 results | ||
| Overall scorescore out of 100, higher is better 19 · 8 of 21 measured | 24.1 | 47.0 |
| Audience scorescore out of 100, higher is better 16 · 8 of 21 measured | 48.4 | 65.5 |
| Business scorescore out of 100, higher is better 17 · 8 of 21 measured | 13.5 | 43.3 |
| SurveyBench measured by Spring Prompt · 3 results | ||
| Analysis ratingrating, higher is betterThe rating weighs each win by how strong the other analysis was; the win rate counts wins against whichever analyses a model happened to meet, so the two can disagree. 4 · 5 of 10 measured | 1,277 | 964 |
| Cost per taskUS dollars, lower is better 2 · 6 of 10 measured | $0.0185 | $0.13 |
| Analysis scorepoints of 100, higher is better 4 · 5 of 10 measured | 88.4 | 79.6 |
| Artificial Analysis reported by Artificial Analysis · 3 results | ||
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence Indexindex score, higher is better 19 · 5 of 244 measured | 43.4max reasoning | 52.6high reasoning |
| Humanity's Last Exam% of questions, higher is better 22 · 3 of 243 measured | 44.4%max reasoning | 57.1%high reasoning |
| Terminal-Bench 4.0% of tasks, higher is better 17 · 4 of 113 measured | 32.8%max reasoning | 57.1%high reasoning |
Show all 92 results (74 more)
| Measure | Claude Haiku 5.5 | Gemini 4 Argon |
|---|---|---|
| BulletBench measured by Spring Prompt · 7 results | ||
| Games lost on time · Blitz 3+2% of games, lower is better 8 · 1 of 15 measured | 37.5% | 0.0% |
| Games lost on time · Bullet 60s% of games, lower is better 17 · 28 of 30 measured | 37.5%no reasoning | 87.5% |
| Invalid moves · Blitz 3+2% of moves, lower is better 1 · 1 of 15 measured | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Invalid moves · Bullet 60s% of moves, lower is better 1 · 1 of 30 measured | 0.0%no reasoning | 0.0% |
| Ladder Elo · Blitz 3+2ladder Elo, higher is better 7 · 1 of 15 measured | 557 | 1,147 |
| Median move time · Blitz 3+2milliseconds, lower is better 10 · 5 of 15 measured | 6.2 s | 1.9 s |
| Median move time · Bullet 60smilliseconds, lower is better 23 · 28 of 30 measured | 1.7 sno reasoning | 2.9 s |
| 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 1 · 1 of 22 measured | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Claims to check% of products, lower is better 15 · 1 of 22 measured | 0.6% | 0.0% |
| Claims to check · sales brief% of products, lower is better 14 · 1 of 22 measured | 1.2% | 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 17 · 4 of 22 measured | 95.6% | 98.2% |
| Content quality · sales brief% of checks, higher is better 15 · 4 of 22 measured | 96.3% | 98.4% |
| Decision accuracy% of decisions, higher is better 16 · 5 of 22 measured | 95.6% | 97.8% |
| Failed outputs% of products, lower is better 1 · 1 of 22 measured | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Failed outputs · sales brief% of products, lower is better 1 · 1 of 22 measured | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Field accuracy% of missing fields, higher is better 20 · 3 of 22 measured | 91.0% | 94.7% |
| Invented values% of filled values, lower is better 8 · 14 of 22 measured | 0.8% | 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 20 · 3 of 22 measured | 11.9% | 2.4% |
| Not findable · sales brief% of products, lower is better 21 · 2 of 22 measured | 10.7% | 1.8% |
| Publish-ready listings% of products, higher is better 15 · 5 of 22 measured | 47.0% | 70.8% |
| Publish-ready listings · sales brief% of products, higher is better 13 · 8 of 22 measured | 20.2% | 35.1% |
| Time per productseconds, lower is better 11 · 3 of 22 measured | 11.0 | 7.30 |
| Unsupported claimsclaims per product, lower is better 18 · 6 of 22 measured | 1.20 | 0.42 |
| Unsupported claims% of products, lower is better 15 · 9 of 22 measured | 32.1% | 16.1% |
| Unsupported claims · sales briefclaims per product, lower is better 14 · 12 of 22 measured | 2.46 | 1.98 |
| Unsupported claims · sales brief% of products, lower is better 14 · 12 of 22 measured | 70.2% | 63.1% |
| Wrong attributes% of products, lower is better 15 · 6 of 22 measured | 19.6% | 15.5% |
| Wrong attributes · sales brief% of products, lower is better 12 · 7 of 22 measured | 18.5% | 15.5% |
| Wrong category or variant% of products, lower is better 1 · 4 of 22 measured | 0.0% | 1.8% |
| Wrong category or variant · sales brief% of products, lower is better 1 · 4 of 22 measured | 0.0% | 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 13 · 16 of 21 measured | 61.1% | 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 16 · 1 of 21 measured | 16.7% | 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. 11 · 13 of 21 measured | 66.2% | 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 21 · 1 of 21 measured | 16.7% | 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 12 · 1 of 21 measured | 33.3% | 0.0% |
| Slides needing work% of tasks, lower is better 2 · 15 of 21 measured | 16.7% | 66.7% |
| Time per deckseconds, lower is better 5 · 6 of 21 measured | 62.1 | 67.5 |
| Unsupported claims% of tasks, lower is better 15 · 11 of 21 measured | 33.3% | 16.7% |
| Unsupported numbers% of tasks, lower is better 19 · 1 of 21 measured | 16.7% | 0.0% |
| ROASBench measured by Spring Prompt · 6 results | ||
| Consistency scorescore out of 100, higher is better 18 · 5 of 21 measured | 10.6 | 34.7 |
| Contribution profitsimulated US dollars, higher is better 17 · 5 of 21 measured | $32,146 | $673,561 |
| Cost of a runUS dollars, lower is better 3 · 11 of 21 measured | $0.0313 | $0.24 |
| Months over budgetmonths of 12, lower is better 1 · 1 of 21 measured | 0 | 0 |
| Planning scorescore out of 100, higher is better 13 · 1 of 21 measured | 54.8 | 55.4 |
| Return on ad spendprofit per $1 spent, higher is better 17 · 8 of 21 measured | $0.03 | $0.55 |
| SurveyBench measured by Spring Prompt · 17 results | ||
| Head-to-head win rate% of comparisons, higher is betterThe rating weighs each win by how strong the other analysis was; the win rate counts wins against whichever analyses a model happened to meet, so the two can disagree. 4 · 5 of 10 measured | 65.6% | 42.2% |
| Leading or double-barrelled questions% of tasks, lower is better 3 · 8 of 10 measured | 33.3% | 66.7% |
| Mistaken next steps% of tasks, lower is better 4 · 5 of 10 measured | 22.2% | 33.3% |
| Numbers right% of answers, higher is better 1 · 7 of 10 measured | 100.0% | 97.1% |
| Objectives unanswerable% of tasks, lower is better 1 · 1 of 10 measured | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Precision ignored% of tasks, lower is better 1 · 4 of 10 measured | 0.0% | 11.1% |
| Research scorepoints of 100, higher is better 4 · 5 of 10 measured | 90.2 | 83.3 |
| Sound research% of tasks, higher is better 4 · 5 of 10 measured | 11.1% | 0.0% |
| Stakeholder's view presumed% of tasks, lower is better 1 · 4 of 10 measured | 0.0% | 11.1% |
| Survey plan scorepoints of 100, higher is better 3 · 4 of 10 measured | 94.5 | 91.8 |
| Survey structure% of tasks, lower is better 7 · 1 of 10 measured | 22.2% | 0.0% |
| Time per taskseconds, lower is better 6 · 3 of 10 measured | 147 | 74.4 |
| Traps handled% of traps, higher is better 4 · 5 of 10 measured | 94.2% | 84.1% |
| Traps missed% of tasks, lower is better 2 · 5 of 10 measured | 22.2% | 77.8% |
| Unsupported findings% of tasks, lower is better 5 · 7 of 10 measured | 77.8% | 88.9% |
| Wrong numbers% of tasks, lower is better 1 · 7 of 10 measured | 0.0% | 33.3% |
| Wrong recommendation% of tasks, lower is better 3 · 3 of 10 measured | 11.1% | 11.1% |
| Artificial Analysis reported by Artificial Analysis · 2 results | ||
| Long-context reasoning (AA-LCR)% of questions, higher is better 19 · 44 of 234 measured | 82.7%max reasoning | 79.7%high reasoning |
| SciCode% of problems, higher is better 24 · 3 of 114 measured | 55.0%max reasoning | 61.8%high reasoning |
Compare them with other models
- Anthropic vs GoogleEvery model from both labs, best against best
- Claude Haiku 5.5 vs Claude Opus 5.5Most intelligent available today
- Claude Haiku 5.5 vs Grok 4.7Just above overall
- Claude Haiku 5.5 vs GPT-6 LunaJust below overall
- 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 Claude Haiku 5.5 better than Gemini 4 Argon?
Pick Gemini 4 Argon if quality matters most: it scores higher (Spring Prompt overall 75 against 41). Pick Claude Haiku 5.5 if cost matters more: it costs 9.0 times less per product listing on CatalogBench.
Which is cheaper, Claude Haiku 5.5 or Gemini 4 Argon?
Claude Haiku 5.5 is cheaper to run: $0.001 against $0.011 per product listing on CatalogBench (9.0 times less).
Which is better for product listings, Claude Haiku 5.5 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 13 for Claude Haiku 5.5.
Which is better for decks from an analysis, Claude Haiku 5.5 or Gemini 4 Argon?
Claude Haiku 5.5 ranks 11 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 user surveys, Claude Haiku 5.5 or Gemini 4 Argon?
Claude Haiku 5.5 ranks 4 of 10 models on sale for planning a user survey and reading its results without being misled, against 5 for Gemini 4 Argon.
Which is better for marketing planning, Claude Haiku 5.5 or Gemini 4 Argon?
Gemini 4 Argon ranks 8 of 21 models on sale for planning a year of ad spend without overspending, against 19 for Claude Haiku 5.5.
Which is better for agents and tool use, Claude Haiku 5.5 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 22 for Claude Haiku 5.5.
Which has the bigger context window, Claude Haiku 5.5 or Gemini 4 Argon?
Gemini 4 Argon: 1,048,576 tokens, against 1,000,000 for Claude Haiku 5.5.
Run Claude Haiku 5.5 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.