Roboflow

Claude Opus 5.5 vs Gemini 4 Argon

Compare Claude Opus 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 Opus 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.

Open Object Detection in the full playground
AnthropicClaude Opus 5.5
Run to compare this model.
GoogleGemini 4 Argon
Run to compare this model.

Models in this comparison

Claude Opus 5.5 vs Gemini 4 Argon on Vision Evals

Gemini 4 Argon scores higher on 4 of the five Vision Evals tasks.

The widest gap is Object Detection, where Gemini 4 Argon leads 82.5% to 74.5%.

Overall, Claude Opus 5.5 averages 82.0% (#3 of 63) against 87.5% (#1 of 63) for Gemini 4 Argon.

Gemini 4 Argon is cheaper ($0.0058 vs $0.015 per sample), while Claude Opus 5.5 is faster (7.6s vs 13.4s per sample).

Claude Opus 5.5Gemini 4 Argon

Claude Opus 5.5 vs Gemini 4 Argon Comparison Table

Evals updated October 13, 2026Pricing updated October 13, 2026

PropertyClaude Opus 5.5Gemini 4 Argon
OrganizationAnthropicGoogle
Categoryclosedclosed
Modalitymultimodalmultimodal
Release DateSep 2026Oct 2026
Context Window1.0M1.0M
ParametersUnknownUndisclosed
LicenseProprietaryProprietary
Commercial usecommercial use per vendor termscommercial use per vendor terms
Pricing per 1M tokens
Input $/1M$4.00$2.00
Output $/1M$20.00$10.00
Vision Tasks
CaptioningDemoDemo
Chart Question AnsweringSupportedSupported
ClassificationDemoDemo
Document Question AnsweringSupportedSupported
Image TaggingSupportedSupported
Multi-Label ClassificationSupportedSupported
Object DetectionDemoDemo
OCRDemoDemo
Vision LanguageSupportedSupported
Visual Question AnsweringDemoDemo
Model Features
Foundation VisionSupportedSupported
LLMs with Vision CapabilitiesSupportedSupported
Multimodal VisionSupportedSupported
Vision Evalsground-truth scores across 5 vision tasks, pooled at low effort
Overall
82.0%
87.5%
Avg cost / sample$0.015$0.0058
Avg speed / sample7.63s13.40s
By task
Object Detection (low)
74.5%
±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 74.0 to 75.0
$0.021
82.5%
±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 81.9 to 83.0
$0.011
Object Detection (high)
76.0%
±1.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 74.7 to 77.0
$0.030
85.1%
±0.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 84.3 to 85.5
$0.027
Counting (low)
80.6%
±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.4 to 82.4
$0.0081
86.0%
±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 85.1 to 86.5
$0.0024
Counting (high)
82.0%
±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 79.7 to 83.8
$0.0098
90.5%
±1.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 89.2 to 91.9
$0.010
Identification (low)
93.8%
±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 93.8 to 93.8
$0.0058
93.8%
±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 93.8 to 93.8
$0.0024
Identification (high)
95.8%
±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 93.8 to 96.9
$0.0067
96.9%
±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 96.9 to 96.9
$0.0057
OCR (low)
78.3%
$0.016
85.7%
$0.0051
by category
Single value
67.8%
Transcription
96.7%
Structured JSON
91.5%
Text localization
61.0%
Single value
78.3%
Transcription
95.5%
Structured JSON
92.6%
Text localization
81.5%
OCR (high)
79.9%
$0.023
88.0%
$0.022
by category
Single value
69.6%
Transcription
96.1%
Structured JSON
94.1%
Text localization
61.1%
Single value
80.0%
Transcription
98.8%
Structured JSON
94.8%
Text localization
84.7%
Reasoning (low)
83.0%
±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 82.1 to 84.1
$0.0090
89.4%
±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 88.1 to 90.7
$0.0024
Reasoning (high)
85.9%
±2.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 82.8 to 88.1
$0.011
91.4%
±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 90.7 to 92.0
$0.013

Claude Opus 5.5 vs Gemini 4 Argon: Overview

Claude Opus 5.5

Claude Opus 5.5 is a proprietary multimodal reasoning model from Anthropic and the first entry in the Claude 5.5 family. It accepts interleaved text and image input and returns text, with a one million token context window and up to 128,000 output tokens per response. Adaptive thinking is always enabled on this model and cannot be disabled; thinking depth is instead governed by an effort parameter with five levels, where medium is the default, a change from the high default used by Claude Opus 5 and earlier Opus models. Anthropic reports a knowledge cutoff of June 2026.

On the visual side, Anthropic characterizes Opus 5.5 as its strongest Opus release for vision and computer use, describing improved reading of dense documents, charts, screenshots, and diagrams for document extraction and visual analysis tasks. Published results include 89.0% on Chartography with tools and 81.8% on OSWorld 2.0 under partial credit scoring, alongside 48.7% under strict scoring reported in the system card. The accompanying system card states that Opus 5.5 scored higher than Opus 5 on every evaluation in its capability summary, with the largest gains concentrated in agentic coding, visual reasoning, computer use, and long-horizon knowledge work. The model ships with safety classifiers covering biology and cybersecurity that can route blocked requests to earlier Claude models.

Gemini 4 Argon

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 4 of the five vision tasks and averages 87.5% (#1 of 63) against 82.0% (#3 of 63) for Claude Opus 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 Object Detection benchmark at low effort, Gemini 4 Argon leads with 82.5% against 74.5%. This is the widest gap between the two models across the benchmark's tasks.

Gemini 4 Argon is cheaper to run. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals task mix it averaged $0.0058 per sample against $0.015. Claude Opus 5.5 is priced at $4.00 per 1M input tokens and $20.00 per 1M output; Gemini 4 Argon is priced at $2.00 per 1M input tokens and $10.00 per 1M output. Actual costs depend on your image sizes, prompts, and output length.

Claude Opus 5.5 is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 7.6s 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.