Roboflow

Claude Sonnet 5.5 vs Gemini 4 Argon

Compare Claude Sonnet 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 Sonnet 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 Sonnet 5.5
Run to compare this model.
GoogleGemini 4 Argon
Run to compare this model.

Models in this comparison

Claude Sonnet 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 66.3%.

Overall, Claude Sonnet 5.5 averages 77.6% (#10 of 63) against 87.5% (#1 of 63) for Gemini 4 Argon.

Gemini 4 Argon is cheaper ($0.0058 vs $0.0073 per sample), while Claude Sonnet 5.5 is faster (8.3s vs 13.4s per sample).

Claude Sonnet 5.5Gemini 4 Argon

Claude Sonnet 5.5 vs Gemini 4 Argon Comparison Table

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

PropertyClaude Sonnet 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$2.00No published price
Output $/1M$10.00No published price
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
77.6%
87.5%
Avg cost / sample$0.0073$0.0058
Avg speed / sample8.33s13.40s
By task
Object Detection (low)
74.3%
±0.9, Mean of 3 runs, range 73.5 to 75.3
$0.0098
82.5%
±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 81.9 to 83.0
$0.011
Object Detection (high)
76.8%
±0.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 76.5 to 77.3
$0.014
85.1%
±0.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 84.3 to 85.5
$0.027
Counting (low)
79.3%
±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.4 to 79.7
$0.0042
86.0%
±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 85.1 to 86.5
$0.0024
Counting (high)
82.9%
±1.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 81.1 to 83.8
$0.0053
90.5%
±1.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 89.2 to 91.9
$0.010
Identification (low)
91.7%
±3.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.5 to 93.8
$0.0029
93.8%
±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 93.8 to 93.8
$0.0024
Identification (high)
90.6%
±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 90.6 to 90.6
$0.0033
96.9%
±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 96.9 to 96.9
$0.0057
OCR (low)
66.3%
$0.0075
85.7%
$0.0051
by category
Single value
48.7%
Transcription
76.3%
Structured JSON
83.8%
Text localization
60.6%
Single value
78.3%
Transcription
95.5%
Structured JSON
92.6%
Text localization
81.5%
OCR (high)–
88.0%
$0.022
by category
Single value
80.0%
Transcription
98.8%
Structured JSON
94.8%
Text localization
84.7%
Reasoning (low)
76.4%
±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 75.5 to 76.8
$0.0049
89.4%
±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 88.1 to 90.7
$0.0024
Reasoning (high)
83.9%
±1.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 82.1 to 85.4
$0.0061
91.4%
±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 90.7 to 92.0
$0.013

Claude Sonnet 5.5 vs Gemini 4 Argon: Overview

Claude Sonnet 5.5

Claude Sonnet 5.5 is a proprietary multimodal language model from Anthropic and the second release in the Claude 5.5 family, following Claude Opus 5.5. It accepts interleaved text and image input and returns text, operating with a 1M token context window and a maximum output of 128K tokens per request. The model uses adaptive thinking by default, allocating variable reasoning effort per request rather than exposing a manual extended thinking toggle, and its training data cutoff is June 2026. Anthropic positions it as a faster, lower cost complement to Opus 5.5 for well scoped everyday tasks, bug fixing, and producing documents, slides, and spreadsheets.

On visual and agentic evaluations reported at launch, Sonnet 5.5 scores 61.6% on Chartography, a chart recognition test, compared with 15.6% for Claude Sonnet 5, and 80.1% on OSWorld 2.1, a computer use benchmark measuring screenshot driven control of a desktop environment, compared with 57.0% for Sonnet 5. It reports 70.6% on Terminal-Bench 4.0 for agentic coding. Anthropic describes it as the first Sonnet model able to complete Pokemon Red from screenshots alone, and it generates output more than 30% faster than Sonnet 5 while using fewer tokens for equivalent work.

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 all five vision tasks and averages 87.5% (#1 of 63) against 77.6% (#10 of 63) for Claude Sonnet 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 66.3%. 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 $0.0073. Actual costs depend on your image sizes, prompts, and output length.

Claude Sonnet 5.5 is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 8.3s 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.