Compare / Gemini 4 Argon vs Mistral Large 4
Gemini 4 Argon vs Mistral Large 4
Which is cheaper, which is more capable, and which does better at each kind of work, from 87 results on 6 sources that measured both models.
GoogleGemini 4 Argon
Mistral AIMistral Large 4
Gemini 4 Argon wins 6015 too close to callMistral Large 4 wins 12
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 14 October 2026 (catalogue release 2026-10-14-7d7cf32c3f6d). See also Google vs Mistral AI, every model from both labs.
Gemini 4 Argon or Mistral Large 4? The short answer
Pick Gemini 4 Argon if quality matters most: it scores higher (Spring Prompt overall 75 against 33). Pick Mistral Large 4 if cost matters more: it costs 3.3 times less per product listing on CatalogBench.
- Spring Prompt overall: Gemini 4 Argon 75, Mistral Large 4 33 (out of 100; how the score works).
- Mistral Large 4 is cheaper to run: $0.003 against $0.011 per product listing on CatalogBench (3.3 times less).
- Gemini 4 Argon scores higher on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index: 52.6 against 38.4.
- Gemini 4 Argon is newer: released 13 Oct 2026, against 6 Oct 2026 for Mistral Large 4.
- On our own benchmarks, on the results both models have: Gemini 4 Argon does better 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 and reasoning and knowledge.
Head to head
75
Spring Prompt overall
33
52.6
Intelligence Index
38.4
$4.00
Price per million tokens, blendedlower is better
$2.06
1,048,576
Context window, tokens
524,288
Every fact side by side
| Gemini 4 Argon | Mistral Large 4 | |
|---|---|---|
| Price per million tokens | $2.00 in · $10.00 out | $1.36 in · $4.18 out |
| Blended (3 in : 1 out) | $4.00 | $2.06 |
| Cheapest host, blended | – | – |
| Cost per product listing (CatalogBench) | $0.011 | $0.003 |
| Intelligence Index | 52.6 | 38.4 |
| Spring Prompt overall | 75 | 33 |
| Output speed, tokens a second | – | – |
| Context window | 1,048,576 tokens | 524,288 tokens |
| Released | 13 Oct 2026 (newer) | 6 Oct 2026 |
| Weights | Closed | Closed |
| Developer based in | the US | France |
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
7 of 22
20 of 22
Decks from an analysisTurning a finished analysis into a deck you could present as it is
13 of 21
20 of 21
User surveysPlanning a user survey and reading its results without being misled
5 of 10
6 of 10
Marketing planningPlanning a year of ad spend without overspending
8 of 21
12 of 21
Agents and tool useMulti-step tasks with tools: support desks, coding agents, function calls
3 of 166
27 of 166
Reasoning and knowledgeHard questions across science, maths and general knowledge
3 of 200
46 of 200
WritingWhat people prefer in blind comparisons, and judged writing quality
1 of 189
not measured
Sticking to the factsSummarising without inventing things, and factual answers
1 of 153
not measured
Speed under pressureGood decisions against a real clock (fast chess)
20 of 25
16 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
- Gemini 4 Argon review: Opus-level product data at a quarter of the cost, until you ask it to sell 14 Oct 2026
- AI Checkpoint: Sol’s new fast lane 9 Oct 2026
- Mistral Large 4 Is Fast, Cheap and Europe's Best Model. On Business Work, It Still Makes Things Up. 7 Oct 2026
- We Told 11 AI Models What Happened in 2026. Most of Them Thought We Were Making It Up. 12 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 4 Argon | Mistral Large 4 |
|---|---|---|
| BulletBench measured by Spring Prompt · 3 results | ||
| Cost per game · Blitz 3+2US dollars, lower is better 10 · 2 of 15 measured | $0.12 | $0.0082 |
| Games lost on time · Blitz 3+2% of games, lower is better 1 · 1 of 15 measured | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Invalid moves · Blitz 3+2% of moves, lower is better 1 · 14 of 15 measured | 0.0% | 0.6% |
| CatalogBench measured by Spring Prompt · 3 results | ||
| Cost per productUS dollars, lower is better 12 · 4 of 22 measured | $0.0109 | $0.0033 |
| Reliably publish-ready% of products, higher is better 5 · 20 of 22 measured | 60.7% | 10.7%high reasoning |
| Reliably publish-ready · sales brief% of products, higher is better 9 · 18 of 22 measured | 17.9% | 1.8%high reasoning |
| DeckBench measured by Spring Prompt · 3 results | ||
| Cost per deckUS dollars, lower is better 10 · 4 of 21 measured | $0.11 | $0.0148 |
| 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. 13 · 20 of 21 measured | 998 | 578 |
| Accurate decks% of tasks, higher is better 13 · 18 of 21 measured | 33.3% | 0.0% |
| ROASBench measured by Spring Prompt · 3 results | ||
| Overall scorescore out of 100, higher is better 8 · 12 of 21 measured | 47.0 | 37.0 |
| Audience scorescore out of 100, higher is better 8 · 12 of 21 measured | 65.5 | 55.8 |
| Business scorescore out of 100, higher is better 8 · 12 of 21 measured | 43.3 | 34.3 |
| 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. 5 · 6 of 10 measured | 964 | 783 |
| Cost per taskUS dollars, lower is better 6 · 5 of 10 measured | $0.13 | $0.0924 |
| Analysis scorepoints of 100, higher is better 5 · 7 of 10 measured | 79.6 | 63.8 |
| Artificial Analysis reported by Artificial Analysis · 3 results | ||
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence Indexindex score, higher is better 5 · 33 of 244 measured | 52.6high reasoning | 38.4 |
| Humanity's Last Exam% of questions, higher is better 3 · 60 of 243 measured | 57.1%high reasoning | 35.0% |
| Terminal-Bench 4.0% of tasks, higher is better 4 · 19 of 113 measured | 57.1%high reasoning | 26.8% |
Show all 87 results (69 more)
| Measure | Gemini 4 Argon | Mistral Large 4 |
|---|---|---|
| BulletBench measured by Spring Prompt · 2 results | ||
| Ladder Elo · Blitz 3+2ladder Elo, higher is better 1 · 11 of 15 measured | 1,147 | 555 |
| Median move time · Blitz 3+2milliseconds, lower is better 5 · 3 of 15 measured | 1.9 s | 0.8 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 1 · 21 of 22 measured | 0.0% | 3.0% |
| Channel rules broken · sales brief% of products, lower is better 1 · 17 of 22 measured | 0.0% | 1.2% |
| Claims to check% of products, lower is better 1 · 17 of 22 measured | 0.0% | 0.7%high reasoning |
| Claims to check · sales brief% of products, lower is better 1 · 16 of 22 measured | 0.0% | 3.3%high reasoning |
| Conflicts caught% of conflicts, higher is better 1 · 1 of 22 measured | 100.0% | 100.0% |
| Content quality% of checks, higher is better 4 · 14 of 22 measured | 98.2% | 96.5% |
| Content quality · sales brief% of checks, higher is better 4 · 17 of 22 measured | 98.4% | 95.9% |
| Decision accuracy% of decisions, higher is better 5 · 19 of 22 measured | 97.8% | 93.1% |
| 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 3 · 5 of 22 measured | 94.7% | 94.4% |
| Invented values% of filled values, lower is better 14 · 19 of 22 measured | 1.7% | 3.5% |
| 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 3 · 8 of 22 measured | 2.4% | 4.2% |
| Not findable · sales brief% of products, lower is better 2 · 7 of 22 measured | 1.8% | 3.0%high reasoning |
| Publish-ready listings% of products, higher is better 5 · 18 of 22 measured | 70.8% | 39.9%high reasoning |
| Publish-ready listings · sales brief% of products, higher is better 8 · 18 of 22 measured | 35.1% | 10.7%high reasoning |
| Time per productseconds, lower is better 3 · 5 of 22 measured | 7.30 | 8.20 |
| Unsupported claimsclaims per product, lower is better 6 · 14 of 22 measured | 0.42 | 0.91high reasoning |
| Unsupported claims% of products, lower is better 9 · 16 of 22 measured | 16.1% | 33.3%high reasoning |
| Unsupported claims · sales briefclaims per product, lower is better 12 · 19 of 22 measured | 1.98 | 3.69high reasoning |
| Unsupported claims · sales brief% of products, lower is better 12 · 17 of 22 measured | 63.1% | 80.4%high reasoning |
| Wrong attributes% of products, lower is better 6 · 15 of 22 measured | 15.5% | 19.6%high reasoning |
| Wrong attributes · sales brief% of products, lower is better 7 · 11 of 22 measured | 15.5% | 17.3%high reasoning |
| Wrong category or variant% of products, lower is better 4 · 2 of 22 measured | 1.8% | 1.2% |
| Wrong category or variant · sales brief% of products, lower is better 4 · 4 of 22 measured | 1.8% | 1.8% |
| DeckBench measured by Spring Prompt · 14 results | ||
| Caveat dropped% of tasks, lower is better 1 · 12 of 21 measured | 0.0% | 16.7% |
| Clean layout% of tasks, higher is better 13 · 13 of 21 measured | 33.3% | 33.3% |
| Design quality% of the maximum, higher is better 16 · 21 of 21 measured | 55.2% | 30.5% |
| Draft figure quoted% of tasks, lower is better 17 · 9 of 21 measured | 50.0% | 16.7% |
| 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. 13 · 21 of 21 measured | 57.0% | 21.3% |
| 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 1 · 20 of 21 measured | 0.0% | 83.3% |
| Slides needing work% of tasks, lower is better 15 · 21 of 21 measured | 66.7% | 100.0% |
| Time per deckseconds, lower is better 6 · 13 of 21 measured | 67.5 | 114 |
| Unsupported claims% of tasks, lower is better 11 · 19 of 21 measured | 16.7% | 50.0% |
| Unsupported numbers% of tasks, lower is better 1 · 21 of 21 measured | 0.0% | 33.3% |
| ROASBench measured by Spring Prompt · 6 results | ||
| Consistency scorescore out of 100, higher is better 5 · 16 of 21 measured | 34.7 | 16.7 |
| Contribution profitsimulated US dollars, higher is better 5 · 10 of 21 measured | $673,561 | $533,401 |
| Cost of a runUS dollars, lower is better 11 · 5 of 21 measured | $0.24 | $0.0657 |
| Months over budgetmonths of 12, lower is better 1 · 1 of 21 measured | 0 | 0high reasoning |
| Planning scorescore out of 100, higher is better 1 · 4 of 21 measured | 55.4 | 55.0high reasoning |
| Return on ad spendprofit per $1 spent, higher is better 8 · 10 of 21 measured | $0.55 | $0.45 |
| 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. 5 · 7 of 10 measured | 42.2% | 33.7% |
| Leading or double-barrelled questions% of tasks, lower is better 8 · 3 of 10 measured | 66.7% | 33.3% |
| Mistaken next steps% of tasks, lower is better 5 · 9 of 10 measured | 33.3% | 66.7% |
| Numbers right% of answers, higher is better 7 · 6 of 10 measured | 97.1% | 98.9% |
| Objectives unanswerable% of tasks, lower is better 1 · 6 of 10 measured | 0.0% | 11.1% |
| Precision ignored% of tasks, lower is better 4 · 6 of 10 measured | 11.1% | 55.6% |
| Research scorepoints of 100, higher is better 5 · 7 of 10 measured | 83.3 | 71.2 |
| 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 4 · 6 of 10 measured | 11.1% | 22.2% |
| Survey plan scorepoints of 100, higher is better 4 · 5 of 10 measured | 91.8 | 88.4 |
| Survey structure% of tasks, lower is better 1 · 3 of 10 measured | 0.0% | 11.1% |
| Time per taskseconds, lower is better 3 · 10 of 10 measured | 74.4 | 439 |
| Traps handled% of traps, higher is better 5 · 6 of 10 measured | 84.1% | 78.7% |
| Traps missed% of tasks, lower is better 5 · 8 of 10 measured | 77.8% | 100.0% |
| Unsupported findings% of tasks, lower is better 7 · 8 of 10 measured | 88.9% | 100.0% |
| Wrong numbers% of tasks, lower is better 7 · 6 of 10 measured | 33.3% | 22.2% |
| Wrong recommendation% of tasks, lower is better 3 · 7 of 10 measured | 11.1% | 44.4% |
| Artificial Analysis reported by Artificial Analysis · 2 results | ||
| Long-context reasoning (AA-LCR)% of questions, higher is better 44 · 29 of 234 measured | 79.7%high reasoning | 81.3% |
| SciCode% of problems, higher is better 3 · 30 of 114 measured | 61.8%high reasoning | 54.2% |
Compare them with other models
- Google vs Mistral AIEvery model from both labs, best against best
- 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
- Mistral Large 4 vs Muse Spark 1.3Most intelligent at $1–3 per million tokens
- Mistral Large 4 vs Claude Opus 5.5Most intelligent available today
Quick answers
Is Gemini 4 Argon better than Mistral Large 4?
Pick Gemini 4 Argon if quality matters most: it scores higher (Spring Prompt overall 75 against 33). Pick Mistral Large 4 if cost matters more: it costs 3.3 times less per product listing on CatalogBench.
Which is cheaper, Gemini 4 Argon or Mistral Large 4?
Mistral Large 4 is cheaper to run: $0.003 against $0.011 per product listing on CatalogBench (3.3 times less).
Which is better for product listings, Gemini 4 Argon or Mistral Large 4?
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 20 for Mistral Large 4.
Which is better for decks from an analysis, Gemini 4 Argon or Mistral Large 4?
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 20 for Mistral Large 4.
Which is better for user surveys, Gemini 4 Argon or Mistral Large 4?
Gemini 4 Argon ranks 5 of 10 models on sale for planning a user survey and reading its results without being misled, against 6 for Mistral Large 4.
Which is better for marketing planning, Gemini 4 Argon or Mistral Large 4?
Gemini 4 Argon ranks 8 of 21 models on sale for planning a year of ad spend without overspending, against 12 for Mistral Large 4.
Which is better for agents and tool use, Gemini 4 Argon or Mistral Large 4?
Gemini 4 Argon ranks 3 of 166 models on sale for multi-step tasks with tools: support desks, coding agents, function calls, against 27 for Mistral Large 4.
Which has the bigger context window, Gemini 4 Argon or Mistral Large 4?
Gemini 4 Argon: 1,048,576 tokens, against 524,288 for Mistral Large 4.
Run Gemini 4 Argon and Mistral Large 4 on your own prompt
Benchmarks aren't your data. Try both side by side in the playground, with the cost of every answer.