Compare / Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite vs Gemini 4 Argon
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite vs Gemini 4 Argon
Which is cheaper, which is more capable, and which does better at each kind of work, from 99 results on 7 sources that measured both models.
GoogleGemini 3.5 Flash-Lite
GoogleGemini 4 Argon
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite wins 1615 too close to callGemini 4 Argon wins 68
Of the 99 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).
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite or Gemini 4 Argon? The short answer
Pick Gemini 4 Argon if quality matters most: it scores higher (Spring Prompt overall 75 against 26). Pick Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite if cost matters more: it costs 5.3 times less per product listing on CatalogBench.
- Spring Prompt overall: Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite 26, Gemini 4 Argon 75 (out of 100; how the score works).
- Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite is cheaper to run: $0.002 against $0.011 per product listing on CatalogBench (5.3 times less).
- Gemini 4 Argon scores higher on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index: 52.6 against 22.2.
- Gemini 4 Argon is newer: released 13 Oct 2026, against 21 Jul 2026 for Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite.
- On our own benchmarks, on the results both models have: Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite does better for speed under pressure; Gemini 4 Argon for product listings, decks from an analysis, user surveys 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
26
Spring Prompt overall
75
22.2
Intelligence Index
52.6
$0.85
Price per million tokens, blendedlower is better
$4.00
1,048,576
Context window, tokens
1,048,576
Every fact side by side
| Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite | Gemini 4 Argon | |
|---|---|---|
| Price per million tokens | $0.30 in · $2.50 out | $2.00 in · $10.00 out |
| Blended (3 in : 1 out) | $0.85 | $4.00 |
| Cheapest host, blended | $0.85 (Google) | – |
| Cost per product listing (CatalogBench) | $0.002 | $0.011 |
| Cached input, per million | $0.030 cached input | – |
| Intelligence Index | 22.2 | 52.6 |
| Spring Prompt overall | 26 | 75 |
| Output speed, tokens a second | 393 | – |
| Context window | 1,048,576 tokens | 1,048,576 tokens |
| Released | 21 Jul 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
18 of 22
7 of 22
Decks from an analysisTurning a finished analysis into a deck you could present as it is
18 of 21
13 of 21
User surveysPlanning a user survey and reading its results without being misled
8 of 10
5 of 10
Marketing planningPlanning a year of ad spend without overspending
17 of 21
8 of 21
Agents and tool useMulti-step tasks with tools: support desks, coding agents, function calls
75 of 166
3 of 166
Professional workReal tasks from banking, consulting and law, business documents and freelance projects
46 of 51
not measured
Reasoning and knowledgeHard questions across science, maths and general knowledge
93 of 200
3 of 200
WritingWhat people prefer in blind comparisons, and judged writing quality
50 of 189
1 of 189
Sticking to the factsSummarising without inventing things, and factual answers
63 of 153
1 of 153
Speed under pressureGood decisions against a real clock (fast chess)
2 of 25
20 of 25
From our research
- Gemini 3.6 Flash Wins the Minute. Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite Wins the Second. 24 Jul 2026
- AI Checkpoint: Sol’s new fast lane 9 Oct 2026
- We Raced AI Models to Find One Small Thing in a Huge Picture. Cutting It Up More Than Doubled What They Found. 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
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 | Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite | Gemini 4 Argon |
|---|---|---|
| BulletBench measured by Spring Prompt · 3 results | ||
| Cost per game · Blitz 3+2US dollars, lower is better 3 · 10 of 15 measured | $0.0087 | $0.12 |
| Cost per game · Bullet 60sUS dollars, lower is better 14 · 10 of 30 measured | $0.0058 | $0.0036 |
| Ladder Elo · Bullet 60sladder Elo, higher is better 5 · 26 of 30 measured | 780 | 147 |
| CatalogBench measured by Spring Prompt · 3 results | ||
| Cost per productUS dollars, lower is better 3 · 12 of 22 measured | $0.0020 | $0.0109 |
| Reliably publish-ready% of products, higher is better 18 · 5 of 22 measured | 17.9% | 60.7% |
| Reliably publish-ready · sales brief% of products, higher is better 16 · 9 of 22 measured | 3.6% | 17.9% |
| DeckBench measured by Spring Prompt · 3 results | ||
| Cost per deckUS dollars, lower is better 3 · 10 of 21 measured | $0.0126 | $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. 18 · 13 of 21 measured | 655 | 998 |
| Accurate decks% of tasks, higher is better 18 · 13 of 21 measured | 0.0% | 33.3% |
| ROASBench measured by Spring Prompt · 3 results | ||
| Overall scorescore out of 100, higher is better 17 · 8 of 21 measured | 25.4 | 47.0 |
| Audience scorescore out of 100, higher is better 17 · 8 of 21 measured | 45.0 | 65.5 |
| Business scorescore out of 100, higher is better 19 · 8 of 21 measured | 12.6 | 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. 8 · 5 of 10 measured | 623 | 964 |
| Cost per taskUS dollars, lower is better 1 · 6 of 10 measured | $0.0144 | $0.13 |
| Analysis scorepoints of 100, higher is better 10 · 5 of 10 measured | 56.7 | 79.6 |
| Arena (formerly LMArena) reported by Arena (formerly LMArena) · 3 results | ||
| Overall · TextArena rating, higher is better 61 · 1 of 387 measured | 1,455 | 1,525high reasoning |
| Overall · Text factualityArena rating, higher is better 63 · 1 of 163 measured | 1,447 | 1,511high reasoning |
| Business, management and finance · TextArena rating, higher is better 63 · 1 of 380 measured | 1,452 | 1,522high reasoning |
| Artificial Analysis reported by Artificial Analysis · 3 results | ||
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence Indexindex score, higher is better 93 · 5 of 244 measured | 22.2 | 52.6high reasoning |
| Humanity's Last Exam% of questions, higher is better 115 · 3 of 243 measured | 18.8% | 57.1%high reasoning |
| Terminal-Bench 4.0% of tasks, higher is better 53 · 4 of 113 measured | 1.0% | 57.1%high reasoning |
Show all 99 results (78 more)
| Measure | Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite | Gemini 4 Argon |
|---|---|---|
| BulletBench measured by Spring Prompt · 7 results | ||
| Games lost on time · Blitz 3+2% of games, lower is better 1 · 1 of 15 measured | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Games lost on time · Bullet 60s% of games, lower is better 1 · 28 of 30 measured | 0.0% | 87.5% |
| Invalid moves · Blitz 3+2% of moves, lower is better 13 · 1 of 15 measured | 0.5% | 0.0% |
| Invalid moves · Bullet 60s% of moves, lower is better 1 · 1 of 30 measured | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Ladder Elo · Blitz 3+2ladder Elo, higher is better 5 · 1 of 15 measured | 707 | 1,147 |
| Median move time · Blitz 3+2milliseconds, lower is better 2 · 5 of 15 measured | 0.8 s | 1.9 s |
| Median move time · Bullet 60smilliseconds, lower is better 14 · 28 of 30 measured | 0.9 s | 2.9 s |
| CatalogBench measured by Spring Prompt · 28 results | ||
| Channel compliance% of products, higher is better 22 · 1 of 22 measured | 98.2% | 100.0% |
| Channel rules broken% of products, lower is better 20 · 1 of 22 measured | 1.8% | 0.0% |
| Channel rules broken · sales brief% of products, lower is better 17 · 1 of 22 measured | 1.2% | 0.0% |
| Claims to check% of products, lower is better 19 · 1 of 22 measured | 1.8% | 0.0% |
| Claims to check · sales brief% of products, lower is better 18 · 1 of 22 measured | 7.7% | 0.0% |
| Conflicts caught% of conflicts, higher is better 22 · 1 of 22 measured | 84.9% | 100.0% |
| Content quality% of checks, higher is better 18 · 4 of 22 measured | 95.5% | 98.2% |
| Content quality · sales brief% of checks, higher is better 18 · 4 of 22 measured | 94.8% | 98.4% |
| Decision accuracy% of decisions, higher is better 17 · 5 of 22 measured | 93.4% | 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 16 · 3 of 22 measured | 92.5% | 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 22 · 3 of 22 measured | 20.2% | 2.4% |
| Not findable · sales brief% of products, lower is better 22 · 2 of 22 measured | 21.4% | 1.8% |
| Publish-ready listings% of products, higher is better 19 · 5 of 22 measured | 35.1% | 70.8% |
| Publish-ready listings · sales brief% of products, higher is better 18 · 8 of 22 measured | 10.7% | 35.1% |
| Time per productseconds, lower is better 1 · 3 of 22 measured | 3.30 | 7.30 |
| Unsupported claimsclaims per product, lower is better 17 · 6 of 22 measured | 1.18 | 0.42 |
| Unsupported claims% of products, lower is better 16 · 9 of 22 measured | 33.3% | 16.1% |
| Unsupported claims · sales briefclaims per product, lower is better 16 · 12 of 22 measured | 3.44 | 1.98 |
| Unsupported claims · sales brief% of products, lower is better 16 · 12 of 22 measured | 78.6% | 63.1% |
| Wrong attributes% of products, lower is better 21 · 6 of 22 measured | 34.5% | 15.5% |
| Wrong attributes · sales brief% of products, lower is better 20 · 7 of 22 measured | 35.1% | 15.5% |
| Wrong category or variant% of products, lower is better 21 · 4 of 22 measured | 9.5% | 1.8% |
| Wrong category or variant · sales brief% of products, lower is better 21 · 4 of 22 measured | 10.7% | 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 13 · 13 of 21 measured | 33.3% | 33.3% |
| Design quality% of the maximum, higher is better 14 · 16 of 21 measured | 60.2% | 55.2% |
| Draft figure quoted% of tasks, lower is better 17 · 17 of 21 measured | 50.0% | 50.0% |
| Findings missing% of tasks, lower is better 21 · 1 of 21 measured | 33.3% | 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. 18 · 13 of 21 measured | 28.5% | 57.0% |
| Layout defects% of tasks, lower is better 13 · 13 of 21 measured | 66.7% | 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 12 · 12 of 21 measured | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Recommendation late or wrong% of tasks, lower is better 20 · 1 of 21 measured | 83.3% | 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 1 · 6 of 21 measured | 15.2 | 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 14 · 5 of 21 measured | 21.8 | 34.7 |
| Contribution profitsimulated US dollars, higher is better 18 · 5 of 21 measured | $11,834 | $673,561 |
| Cost of a runUS dollars, lower is better 4 · 11 of 21 measured | $0.0390 | $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 7 · 1 of 21 measured | 54.9 | 55.4 |
| Return on ad spendprofit per $1 spent, higher is better 18 · 8 of 21 measured | $0.01 | $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. 8 · 5 of 10 measured | 24.5% | 42.2% |
| Leading or double-barrelled questions% of tasks, lower is better 10 · 8 of 10 measured | 77.8% | 66.7% |
| Mistaken next steps% of tasks, lower is better 7 · 5 of 10 measured | 44.4% | 33.3% |
| Numbers right% of answers, higher is better 8 · 7 of 10 measured | 75.5% | 97.1% |
| Objectives unanswerable% of tasks, lower is better 10 · 1 of 10 measured | 33.3% | 0.0% |
| Precision ignored% of tasks, lower is better 8 · 4 of 10 measured | 100.0% | 11.1% |
| Research scorepoints of 100, higher is better 10 · 5 of 10 measured | 55.6 | 83.3 |
| Sound research% of tasks, higher is better 5 · 5 of 10 measured | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Stakeholder's view presumed% of tasks, lower is better 10 · 4 of 10 measured | 55.6% | 11.1% |
| Survey plan scorepoints of 100, higher is better 10 · 4 of 10 measured | 53.1 | 91.8 |
| Survey structure% of tasks, lower is better 10 · 1 of 10 measured | 55.6% | 0.0% |
| Time per taskseconds, lower is better 1 · 3 of 10 measured | 16.3 | 74.4 |
| Traps handled% of traps, higher is better 10 · 5 of 10 measured | 56.5% | 84.1% |
| Traps missed% of tasks, lower is better 8 · 5 of 10 measured | 100.0% | 77.8% |
| Unsupported findings% of tasks, lower is better 4 · 7 of 10 measured | 66.7% | 88.9% |
| Wrong numbers% of tasks, lower is better 8 · 7 of 10 measured | 100.0% | 33.3% |
| Wrong recommendation% of tasks, lower is better 6 · 3 of 10 measured | 22.2% | 11.1% |
| Arena (formerly LMArena) reported by Arena (formerly LMArena) · 4 results | ||
| Creative writing · TextArena rating, higher is better 52 · 1 of 385 measured | 1,436 | 1,519high reasoning |
| Expert prompts · TextArena rating, higher is better 78 · 7 of 338 measured | 1,470 | 1,539high reasoning |
| Instruction following · TextArena rating, higher is better 67 · 1 of 387 measured | 1,443 | 1,528high reasoning |
| Writing, literature and language · TextArena rating, higher is better 56 · 1 of 386 measured | 1,443 | 1,522high reasoning |
| Artificial Analysis reported by Artificial Analysis · 2 results | ||
| Long-context reasoning (AA-LCR)% of questions, higher is better 74 · 44 of 234 measured | 76.0% | 79.7%high reasoning |
| SciCode% of problems, higher is better 76 · 3 of 114 measured | 41.3% | 61.8%high reasoning |
Compare them with other models
- Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite vs Claude Opus 5.5Most intelligent available today
- 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 Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite better than Gemini 4 Argon?
Pick Gemini 4 Argon if quality matters most: it scores higher (Spring Prompt overall 75 against 26). Pick Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite if cost matters more: it costs 5.3 times less per product listing on CatalogBench.
Which is cheaper, Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite or Gemini 4 Argon?
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite is cheaper to run: $0.002 against $0.011 per product listing on CatalogBench (5.3 times less).
Which is better for product listings, Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite 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 18 for Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite.
Which is better for decks from an analysis, Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite or Gemini 4 Argon?
Gemini 4 Argon ranks 13 of 21 models on sale for turning a finished analysis into a deck you could present as it is, against 18 for Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite.
Which is better for user surveys, Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite or Gemini 4 Argon?
Gemini 4 Argon ranks 5 of 10 models on sale for planning a user survey and reading its results without being misled, against 8 for Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite.
Which is better for marketing planning, Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite or Gemini 4 Argon?
Gemini 4 Argon ranks 8 of 21 models on sale for planning a year of ad spend without overspending, against 17 for Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite.
Which is better for agents and tool use, Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite 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 75 for Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite.
Run Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite 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.