Compare / Gemini 4 Argon vs Gemini 4 Carbon
Gemini 4 Argon vs Gemini 4 Carbon
Which is cheaper, which is more capable, and which does better at each kind of work, from 87 results on 5 sources that measured both models.
GoogleGemini 4 Argon
GoogleGemini 4 Carbon
Gemini 4 Argon wins 2730 too close to callGemini 4 Carbon wins 30
Of the 87 results both models have, the better value on each. Results whose reported ranges overlap are too close to call.
Results as of 11 November 2026 (catalogue release 2026-11-11-7ba7a6de390d).
Gemini 4 Argon or Gemini 4 Carbon? The short answer
Pick Gemini 4 Argon: it scores higher (Spring Prompt overall 73 against 54) and costs less.
- Spring Prompt overall: Gemini 4 Argon 73, Gemini 4 Carbon 54 (out of 100; how the score works).
- Gemini 4 Argon is cheaper to run: $0.011 against $0.021 per product listing on CatalogBench (49% less).
- Gemini 4 Carbon is newer: released 10 Nov 2026, against 13 Oct 2026 for Gemini 4 Argon.
- On our own benchmarks, on the results both models have: Gemini 4 Argon does better for product listings; Gemini 4 Carbon for marketing planning.
Head to head
73
Spring Prompt overall
54
$4.00
Price per million tokens, blendedlower is better
$8.00
1,048,576
Context window, tokens
1,048,576
Every fact side by side
| Gemini 4 Argon | Gemini 4 Carbon | |
|---|---|---|
| Price per million tokens | $2.00 in · $10.00 out | $4.00 in · $20.00 out |
| Blended (3 in : 1 out) | $4.00 | $8.00 |
| Cheapest host, blended | $4.00 (Google) | – |
| Cost per product listing (CatalogBench) | $0.011 | $0.021 |
| Cached input, per million | – | $0.20 cached input |
| Intelligence Index | 52.6 | – |
| Spring Prompt overall | 73 | 54 |
| Output speed, tokens a second | – | – |
| Context window | 1,048,576 tokens | 1,048,576 tokens |
| Released | 13 Oct 2026 | 10 Nov 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
9 of 30
13 of 30
Decks from an analysisTurning a finished analysis into a deck you could present as it is
21 of 30
20 of 30
User surveysPlanning a user survey and reading its results without being misled
13 of 21
11 of 21
Marketing planningPlanning a year of ad spend without overspending
13 of 30
12 of 30
Agents and tool useMulti-step tasks with tools: support desks, coding agents, function calls
5 of 159
not measured
Reasoning and knowledgeHard questions across science, maths and general knowledge
4 of 187
not measured
WritingWhat people prefer in blind comparisons, and judged writing quality
1 of 169
not measured
Sticking to the factsSummarising without inventing things, and factual answers
1 of 139
not measured
Speed under pressureGood decisions against a real clock (fast chess)
25 of 33
14 of 33
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
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 4 Argon | Gemini 4 Carbon |
|---|---|---|
| BulletBench measured by Spring Prompt · 3 results | ||
| Cost per game · Blitz 3+2US dollars, lower is better 12 · 7 of 18 measured | $0.12 | $0.0534 |
| Cost per game · Bullet 60sUS dollars, lower is better 12 · 27 of 39 measured | $0.0036 | $0.0167low reasoning |
| Ladder Elo · Bullet 60sladder Elo, higher is better 32 · 24 of 39 measured | 147 | 358low reasoning |
| CatalogBench measured by Spring Prompt · 3 results | ||
| Cost per productUS dollars, lower is better 18 · 21 of 31 measured | $0.0109 | $0.0213 |
| Reliably publish-ready% of products, higher is better 7 · 11 of 30 measured | 60.7% | 53.6% |
| Reliably publish-ready · sales brief% of products, higher is better 13 · 15 of 30 measured | 17.9% | 14.3% |
| DeckBench measured by Spring Prompt · 3 results | ||
| Cost per deckUS dollars, lower is better 17 · 22 of 31 measured | $0.11 | $0.16 |
| 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. 21 · 20 of 31 measured | 978 | 1,021 |
| Accurate decks% of tasks, higher is better 18 · 18 of 31 measured | 33.3% | 33.3% |
| ROASBench measured by Spring Prompt · 3 results | ||
| Overall scorescore out of 100, higher is better 13 · 12 of 31 measured | 47.0 | 51.2 |
| Audience scorescore out of 100, higher is better 12 · 11 of 31 measured | 65.5 | 66.4 |
| Business scorescore out of 100, higher is better 14 · 12 of 31 measured | 43.3 | 50.1 |
| 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. 13 · 11 of 22 measured | 960 | 1,076 |
| Cost per taskUS dollars, lower is better 15 · 17 of 22 measured | $0.13 | $0.31 |
| Analysis scorepoints of 100, higher is better 12 · 10 of 22 measured | 79.6 | 84.9 |
Show all 87 results (72 more)
| Measure | Gemini 4 Argon | Gemini 4 Carbon |
|---|---|---|
| BulletBench measured by Spring Prompt · 7 results | ||
| Games lost on time · Blitz 3+2% of games, lower is better 1 · 16 of 18 measured | 0.0% | 62.5% |
| Games lost on time · Bullet 60s% of games, lower is better 35 · 30 of 39 measured | 87.5% | 75.0%low reasoning |
| Invalid moves · Blitz 3+2% of moves, lower is better 1 · 1 of 18 measured | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Invalid moves · Bullet 60s% of moves, lower is better 1 · 1 of 39 measured | 0.0% | 0.0%low reasoning |
| Ladder Elo · Blitz 3+2ladder Elo, higher is better 1 · 5 of 18 measured | 1,147 | 848low reasoning |
| Median move time · Blitz 3+2milliseconds, lower is better 5 · 8 of 18 measured | 1.9 s | 4.0 slow reasoning |
| Median move time · Bullet 60smilliseconds, lower is better 32 · 36 of 39 measured | 2.9 s | 3.2 slow reasoning |
| CatalogBench measured by Spring Prompt · 28 results | ||
| Channel compliance% of products, higher is better 1 · 1 of 31 measured | 100.0% | 100.0% |
| Channel rules broken% of products, lower is better 1 · 1 of 31 measured | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Channel rules broken · sales brief% of products, lower is better 1 · 1 of 31 measured | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Claims to check% of products, lower is better 1 · 1 of 29 measured | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Claims to check · sales brief% of products, lower is better 1 · 1 of 29 measured | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Conflicts caught% of conflicts, higher is better 1 · 1 of 31 measured | 100.0% | 100.0% |
| Content quality% of checks, higher is better 6 · 14 of 31 measured | 98.2% | 97.3% |
| Content quality · sales brief% of checks, higher is better 6 · 6 of 31 measured | 98.4% | 98.4% |
| Decision accuracy% of decisions, higher is better 8 · 12 of 31 measured | 97.8% | 97.0% |
| Failed outputs% of products, lower is better 1 · 27 of 31 measured | 0.0% | 1.2% |
| Failed outputs · sales brief% of products, lower is better 1 · 1 of 31 measured | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Field accuracy% of missing fields, higher is better 6 · 5 of 31 measured | 94.7% | 94.9% |
| Invented values% of filled values, lower is better 18 · 1 of 31 measured | 1.7% | 0.0% |
| Missing UK information% of products, lower is better 1 · 1 of 31 measured | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Missing UK information · sales brief% of products, lower is better 1 · 1 of 31 measured | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Not findable% of products, lower is better 8 · 5 of 31 measured | 2.4% | 1.8% |
| Not findable · sales brief% of products, lower is better 5 · 11 of 31 measured | 1.8% | 2.4% |
| Publish-ready listings% of products, higher is better 9 · 12 of 31 measured | 70.8% | 69.6% |
| Publish-ready listings · sales brief% of products, higher is better 13 · 16 of 31 measured | 35.1% | 31.0% |
| Time per productseconds, lower is better 4 · 26 of 31 measured | 7.30 | 45.3 |
| Unsupported claims% of products, lower is better 14 · 16 of 31 measured | 16.1% | 17.3% |
| Unsupported claimsclaims per product, lower is better 12 · 10 of 31 measured | 0.42 | 0.36 |
| Unsupported claims · sales briefclaims per product, lower is better 17 · 18 of 31 measured | 1.98 | 2.10 |
| Unsupported claims · sales brief% of products, lower is better 18 · 19 of 31 measured | 63.1% | 65.5% |
| Wrong attributes% of products, lower is better 10 · 2 of 31 measured | 15.5% | 11.3% |
| Wrong attributes · sales brief% of products, lower is better 12 · 5 of 31 measured | 15.5% | 14.3% |
| Wrong category or variant% of products, lower is better 6 · 2 of 31 measured | 1.8% | 0.6% |
| Wrong category or variant · sales brief% of products, lower is better 6 · 6 of 31 measured | 1.8% | 1.8% |
| DeckBench measured by Spring Prompt · 14 results | ||
| Caveat dropped% of tasks, lower is better 1 · 1 of 31 measured | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Clean layout% of tasks, higher is better 16 · 16 of 31 measured | 33.3% | 33.3% |
| Design quality% of the maximum, higher is better 24 · 20 of 31 measured | 55.2% | 59.8% |
| Draft figure quoted% of tasks, lower is better 24 · 17 of 31 measured | 50.0% | 33.3% |
| Findings missing% of tasks, lower is better 1 · 1 of 31 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. 17 · 24 of 31 measured | 51.7% | 39.4% |
| Layout defects% of tasks, lower is better 16 · 16 of 31 measured | 66.7% | 66.7% |
| Misleading metric used% of tasks, lower is better 1 · 1 of 31 measured | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Presentable decks% of tasks, higher is better 15 · 12 of 31 measured | 0.0% | 16.7% |
| Recommendation late or wrong% of tasks, lower is better 1 · 1 of 31 measured | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Slides needing work% of tasks, lower is better 22 · 22 of 31 measured | 66.7% | 66.7% |
| Time per deckseconds, lower is better 7 · 24 of 31 measured | 67.5 | 228 |
| Unsupported claims% of tasks, lower is better 15 · 23 of 31 measured | 16.7% | 33.3% |
| Unsupported numbers% of tasks, lower is better 1 · 1 of 31 measured | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| ROASBench measured by Spring Prompt · 6 results | ||
| Consistency scorescore out of 100, higher is better 9 · 5 of 31 measured | 34.7 | 38.1 |
| Contribution profitsimulated US dollars, higher is better 12 · 6 of 31 measured | $673,561 | $789,366 |
| Cost of a runUS dollars, lower is better 18 · 23 of 31 measured | $0.24 | $0.52 |
| Months over budgetmonths of 12, lower is better 1 · 1 of 31 measured | 0 | 0 |
| Planning scorescore out of 100, higher is better 1 · 6 of 31 measured | 55.4 | 55.0 |
| Return on ad spendprofit per $1 spent, higher is better 14 · 9 of 31 measured | $0.55 | $0.65 |
| 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. 15 · 12 of 22 measured | 40.8% | 49.4% |
| Leading or double-barrelled questions% of tasks, lower is better 19 · 16 of 22 measured | 66.7% | 55.6% |
| Mistaken next steps% of tasks, lower is better 14 · 9 of 22 measured | 33.3% | 22.2% |
| Numbers right% of answers, higher is better 17 · 1 of 22 measured | 97.1% | 100.0% |
| Objectives unanswerable% of tasks, lower is better 1 · 1 of 22 measured | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Precision ignored% of tasks, lower is better 11 · 11 of 22 measured | 11.1% | 11.1% |
| Research scorepoints of 100, higher is better 12 · 10 of 22 measured | 83.3 | 87.0 |
| Sound research% of tasks, higher is better 13 · 10 of 22 measured | 0.0% | 11.1% |
| Stakeholder's view presumed% of tasks, lower is better 9 · 9 of 22 measured | 11.1% | 11.1% |
| Survey plan scorepoints of 100, higher is better 12 · 11 of 22 measured | 91.8 | 92.0 |
| Survey structure% of tasks, lower is better 1 · 3 of 22 measured | 0.0% | 11.1% |
| Time per taskseconds, lower is better 4 · 19 of 22 measured | 74.4 | 390 |
| Traps handled% of traps, higher is better 13 · 11 of 22 measured | 84.1% | 92.8% |
| Traps missed% of tasks, lower is better 13 · 10 of 22 measured | 77.8% | 44.4% |
| Unsupported findings% of tasks, lower is better 18 · 12 of 22 measured | 88.9% | 77.8% |
| Wrong numbers% of tasks, lower is better 15 · 1 of 22 measured | 33.3% | 0.0% |
| Wrong recommendation% of tasks, lower is better 5 · 12 of 22 measured | 11.1% | 22.2% |
Compare them with other models
- 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 Claude Fable 5.2Highest-scoring overall available today
- Gemini 4 Carbon vs Claude Opus 5.5Highest-scoring overall at $3–10 per million tokens
- Gemini 4 Carbon vs Claude Fable 5.2Highest-scoring overall available today
- Gemini 4 Carbon vs Gemini 3.8 FlashJust above overall
Quick answers
Is Gemini 4 Argon better than Gemini 4 Carbon?
Pick Gemini 4 Argon: it scores higher (Spring Prompt overall 73 against 54) and costs less.
Which is cheaper, Gemini 4 Argon or Gemini 4 Carbon?
Gemini 4 Argon is cheaper to run: $0.011 against $0.021 per product listing on CatalogBench (49% less).
Which is better for product listings, Gemini 4 Argon or Gemini 4 Carbon?
Gemini 4 Argon ranks 9 of 30 models on sale for turning a sparse product feed and photos into listings that can go live, against 13 for Gemini 4 Carbon.
Which is better for decks from an analysis, Gemini 4 Argon or Gemini 4 Carbon?
Gemini 4 Carbon ranks 20 of 30 models on sale for turning a finished analysis into a deck you could present as it is, against 21 for Gemini 4 Argon.
Which is better for user surveys, Gemini 4 Argon or Gemini 4 Carbon?
Gemini 4 Carbon ranks 11 of 21 models on sale for planning a user survey and reading its results without being misled, against 13 for Gemini 4 Argon.
Which is better for marketing planning, Gemini 4 Argon or Gemini 4 Carbon?
Gemini 4 Carbon ranks 12 of 30 models on sale for planning a year of ad spend without overspending, against 13 for Gemini 4 Argon.
Which is better for speed under pressure, Gemini 4 Argon or Gemini 4 Carbon?
Gemini 4 Carbon ranks 14 of 33 models on sale for good decisions against a real clock (fast chess), against 25 for Gemini 4 Argon.
Run Gemini 4 Argon and Gemini 4 Carbon on your own prompt.
Benchmarks aren't your task. Test both side by side on your prompt, with every answer checked against your rules and the cost of each one.