Claude Opus 5.5 vs Gemini 4 Carbon
Gemini 4 Carbon and Claude Opus 5.5 score 89.4% vs 82.0% averaged across five Vision Evals tasks (#1 and #6 of 68 models), so Gemini 4 Carbon leads overall.
- Gemini 4 Carbon wins 4 of the 5 tasks, with its widest lead on object detection (84.5% vs 74.5%).
- Gemini 4 Carbon is about a third of the cost: $0.0061 vs $0.015 overall average cost per sample.
- Claude Opus 5.5 is faster: 7.6s vs 8.7s per sample.
Roboflow Vision Evals. Full breakdown below.
Compare Claude Opus 5.5 vs Gemini 4 Carbon 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
Claude Opus 5.5 vs Gemini 4 Carbon on Vision Evals
Roboflow Vision Evals. Full breakdown below.
Claude Opus 5.5 vs Gemini 4 Carbon Comparison Table
Evals updated November 10, 2026Pricing updated November 10, 2026
| Property | Claude Opus 5.5 | Gemini 4 Carbon |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | Anthropic | |
| Category | closed | closed |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Sep 2026 | Nov 2026 |
| Context Window | 1.0M | 1.0M |
| Parameters | Unknown | Unknown |
| License | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Commercial use | commercial use per vendor terms | commercial use per vendor terms |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $4.00 | No published price |
| Output $/1M | $20.00 | No published price |
| Vision Tasks | ||
| Promptable Concept Segmentation | Not listed | Demo |
| Model Features | ||
Both support 3 more features | ||
Vision Evalsground-truth scores across 5 vision tasks, pooled at low effort | ||
| Overall | 82.0% | 89.4% |
| Avg cost / sample | $0.015 | $0.0061 |
| Avg speed / sample | 7.63s | 8.71s |
| By task | ||
| Object Detection (low) | 74.5% ±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 74.0 to 75.0 | 84.5% ±0.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 84.2 to 84.8 |
| Object Detection (high) | 76.0% ±1.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 74.7 to 77.0 | 85.9% ±0.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 85.6 to 86.2 |
| Counting (low) | 80.6% ±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.4 to 82.4 | 90.1% ±1.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 89.2 to 91.9 |
| Counting (high) | 82.0% ±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 79.7 to 83.8 | 86.9% ±2.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 83.8 to 89.2 |
| Identification (low) | 93.8% ±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 93.8 to 93.8 | 93.8% ±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 93.8 to 93.8 |
| Identification (high) | 95.8% ±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 93.8 to 96.9 | 96.9% ±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 96.9 to 96.9 |
| OCR (low) | 78.3% | 87.2% |
| by category |
|
|
| OCR (high) | 79.9% | 89.7% |
| by category |
|
|
| Reasoning (low) | 83.0% ±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 82.1 to 84.1 | 91.4% ±1.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 90.1 to 93.4 |
| Reasoning (high) | 85.9% ±2.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 82.8 to 88.1 | 92.3% ±0.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 92.0 to 92.7 |
Claude Opus 5.5 vs Gemini 4 Carbon: Overview
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. 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 Carbon is a multimodal model from Google. It builds on Gemini 4 Argon and supports reasoning over text and images. Google describes improvements in coding and long-running tasks. Model weights are not publicly released.
Frequently Asked Questions
On Roboflow's Vision Evals, Gemini 4 Carbon performed better. It scores higher on 4 of the five vision tasks and averages 89.4% (#1 of 68) against 82.0% (#6 of 68) 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 Carbon leads with 84.5% against 74.5%. This is the widest gap between the two models across the benchmark's tasks.
Gemini 4 Carbon is cheaper to run. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals task mix it averaged $0.0061 per sample against $0.015. 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 8.7s. 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.