Claude Haiku 5.5 vs Gemini 4 Argon
Compare Claude Haiku 5.5 and Gemini 4 Argon side-by-side. See how these vision models stack up in Image Captioning, OCR, Classification, Object Detection, and Open Prompt.
Compare Claude Haiku 5.5 vs Gemini 4 Argon live
Run the same image across every model that supports a task and compare their outputs side-by-side.
Detect and compare bounding boxes across models on the same image.
Upload an image
Drag and drop an image here, or click to browse
Models in this comparison
Claude Haiku 5.5 vs Gemini 4 Argon on Vision Evals
Gemini 4 Argon scores higher on all five Vision Evals tasks.
The widest gap is OCR, where Gemini 4 Argon leads 85.7% to 61.2%.
Overall, Claude Haiku 5.5 averages 69.6% (#22 of 63) against 87.5% (#1 of 63) for Gemini 4 Argon.
Claude Haiku 5.5 is both cheaper ($0.0006 vs $0.0058 per sample) and faster (11.0s vs 13.4s per sample).
Claude Haiku 5.5 vs Gemini 4 Argon Comparison Table
Evals updated October 13, 2026Pricing updated October 13, 2026
| Property | Claude Haiku 5.5 | Gemini 4 Argon |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | Anthropic | |
| Category | closed | closed |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Oct 2026 | Oct 2026 |
| Context Window | 1.0M | 1.0M |
| Parameters | undisclosed | Undisclosed |
| License | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Commercial use | commercial use per vendor terms | commercial use per vendor terms |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $0.100 | No published price |
| Output $/1M | $0.500 | No published price |
| Vision Tasks | ||
| Captioning | Demo | Demo |
| Chart Question Answering | Supported | Supported |
| Classification | Demo | Demo |
| Document Question Answering | Supported | Supported |
| Image Tagging | Supported | Supported |
| Multi-Label Classification | Supported | Supported |
| Object Detection | Demo | Demo |
| OCR | Demo | Demo |
| Vision Language | Supported | Supported |
| Visual Question Answering | Demo | Demo |
| Model Features | ||
| Foundation Vision | Supported | Supported |
| LLMs with Vision Capabilities | Supported | Supported |
| Multimodal Vision | Supported | Supported |
Vision Evalsground-truth scores across 5 vision tasks, pooled at low effort | ||
| Overall | 69.6% | 87.5% |
| Avg cost / sample | $0.0006 | $0.0058 |
| Avg speed / sample | 11.01s | 13.40s |
| By task | ||
| Object Detection (low) | 65.8% ±0.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 65.1 to 66.2 | 82.5% ±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 81.9 to 83.0 |
| Object Detection (high) | 68.2% ±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 67.2 to 69.2 | 85.1% ±0.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 84.3 to 85.5 |
| Counting (low) | 68.9% ±4.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 64.9 to 74.3 | 86.0% ±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 85.1 to 86.5 |
| Counting (high) | 73.0% ±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 71.6 to 74.3 | 90.5% ±1.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 89.2 to 91.9 |
| Identification (low) | 83.3% ±3.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 81.3 to 87.5 | 93.8% ±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 93.8 to 93.8 |
| Identification (high) | 86.5% ±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 84.4 to 87.5 | 96.9% ±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 96.9 to 96.9 |
| OCR (low) | 61.2% | 85.7% |
| by category |
|
|
| OCR (high) | 65.3% | 88.0% |
| by category |
|
|
| Reasoning (low) | 68.9% ±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 66.9 to 70.9 | 89.4% ±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 88.1 to 90.7 |
| Reasoning (high) | 74.8% ±2.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 72.2 to 77.5 | 91.4% ±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 90.7 to 92.0 |
Claude Haiku 5.5 vs Gemini 4 Argon: Overview
Claude Haiku 5.5 is a proprietary multimodal language model from Anthropic and the smallest member of the Claude 5.5 family, released on October 7, 2026 after Claude Opus 5.5 and Claude Sonnet 5.5. It accepts text and image input and returns text, with a 1M token context window and up to 128K output tokens per request. It is the first Haiku-class model with an adjustable effort parameter: adaptive thinking is on by default and the model decides how much to reason, steered by effort levels from low to max with medium as the default. Its training data cutoff is June 2026. Pricing starts at $0.10 per million input tokens and $0.50 per million output tokens for prompts up to 100K tokens, which Anthropic reports is about 90% lower than Claude Haiku 4.5 for requests in that range.
Anthropic positions Haiku 5.5 for high-volume, latency-sensitive work such as classification, extraction, routing, summarization, and subagent tasks, and describes it as its fastest model to date at standard speed. On visual and agentic evaluations reported at launch, it scores 46.4% on Chartography, a chart reading benchmark, compared with 6.4% for Haiku 4.5 and 61.6% for Sonnet 5.5, and 72.4% on the offline subset of OSWorld 2.1, a screenshot driven computer use benchmark, compared with 15.7% for Haiku 4.5. It uses the same tokenizer as Claude Opus 4.7 and later models, so the same text counts as roughly 30% more tokens than on Haiku 4.5.
Gemini 4 Argon is Google DeepMind's frontier Gemini 4 model, built to sustain extended reasoning across long-horizon workflows in software engineering, enterprise knowledge work such as legal and finance, scientific analysis, and defensive cybersecurity. It accepts text, image, video, and document input and returns text, operating over a one million token context window. The model raises the maximum output length to one million tokens, compared with a 64K ceiling on earlier Gemini releases, so a single reasoning trajectory can run for hundreds of thousands of tokens before terminating.
On the visual side, Argon targets multimodal document comprehension, professional chart analysis, and retrieval of specific details from long recordings, reporting 91.7% on LVBench for long-video understanding and 71.6% on Chartography for chart reasoning. Google also reports 77.9% on DeepSWE v1.1, 51.3% on AutomationBench, 68% on CWE-bench v1, and first place on the Vals Index, which aggregates finance, coding, legal, and tax tasks. Following Gemini API conventions, it localizes objects by emitting bounding boxes as [ymin, xmin, ymax, xmax] integers normalized to a 0 to 1000 range, which supports prompt driven detection and grounding alongside captioning, document parsing, and visual question answering. Google describes adversarial training and automated red teaming for indirect prompt injection resistance, plus chain-of-thought and action monitors that halt execution when behavior drifts outside user intent.
Frequently Asked Questions
On Roboflow's Vision Evals, Gemini 4 Argon performed better. It scores higher on all five vision tasks and averages 87.5% (#1 of 63) against 69.6% (#22 of 63) for Claude Haiku 5.5. These scores measure vision capabilities only; either model may perform differently on work outside this benchmark's tasks.
No. On the Vision Evals OCR benchmark at low effort, Gemini 4 Argon leads with 85.7% against 61.2%. This is the widest gap between the two models across the benchmark's tasks.
Claude Haiku 5.5 is cheaper to run. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals task mix it averaged $0.0006 per sample against $0.0058. Actual costs depend on your image sizes, prompts, and output length.
Claude Haiku 5.5 is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 11.0s per inference against 13.4s. Latency varies with image size, prompt length, and provider load, so treat these as relative rather than guaranteed figures.
Yes. The comparison demo on this page runs both models on the same image side by side for image captioning and OCR in the free Roboflow Playground. You can try it instantly, and a free account unlocks unlimited runs.