Claude Sonnet 5.5 vs Gemini 4 Hydrogen
Gemini 4 Hydrogen and Claude Sonnet 5.5 score 87.3% vs 77.6% averaged across five Vision Evals tasks (#3 and #14 of 69 models), so Gemini 4 Hydrogen leads overall.
- Gemini 4 Hydrogen wins all 5 tasks, with its widest lead on OCR (86.7% vs 66.3%).
- Claude Sonnet 5.5 is cheaper: $0.0073 vs $0.0094 overall average cost per sample.
- Claude Sonnet 5.5 is faster: 8.3s vs 13.2s per sample.
Roboflow Vision Evals. Full breakdown below.
Compare Claude Sonnet 5.5 vs Gemini 4 Hydrogen 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 Sonnet 5.5 vs Gemini 4 Hydrogen on Vision Evals
Roboflow Vision Evals. Full breakdown below.
Claude Sonnet 5.5 vs Gemini 4 Hydrogen Comparison Table
Evals updated November 12, 2026Pricing updated November 13, 2026
| Property | Claude Sonnet 5.5 | Gemini 4 Hydrogen |
|---|---|---|
| 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 | $2.00 | No published price |
| Output $/1M | $10.00 | No published price |
| Vision Tasks | ||
| Chart Question Answering | Supported | Not listed |
| Document Question Answering | Supported | Not listed |
| Image Tagging | Supported | Not listed |
| Multi-Label Classification | Supported | Not listed |
| Promptable Concept Segmentation | Not listed | Demo |
Both support 6 more tasks | ||
| Model Features | ||
Both support 3 more features | ||
Vision Evalsground-truth scores across 5 vision tasks, pooled at low effort | ||
| Overall | 77.6% | 87.3% |
| Avg cost / sample | $0.0073 | $0.0094 |
| Avg speed / sample | 8.33s | 13.23s |
| By task | ||
| Object Detection (low) | 74.3% ±0.9, Mean of 3 runs, range 73.5 to 75.3 | 81.0% ±0.8, Mean of 3 runs, range 80.3 to 81.9 |
| Object Detection (high) | 76.8% ±0.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 76.5 to 77.3 | 83.3% ±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 82.4 to 83.8 |
| Counting (low) | 79.3% ±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.4 to 79.7 | 83.8% ±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 82.4 to 86.5 |
| Counting (high) | 82.9% ±1.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 81.1 to 83.8 | 84.2% ±2.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 82.4 to 87.8 |
| Identification (low) | 91.7% ±3.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.5 to 93.8 | 96.9% ±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 96.9 to 96.9 |
| Identification (high) | 90.6% ±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 90.6 to 90.6 | 96.9% ±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 96.9 to 96.9 |
| OCR (low) | 66.3% | 86.7% |
| by category |
|
|
| OCR (high) | – | 87.2% |
| by category |
| |
| Reasoning (low) | 76.4% ±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 75.5 to 76.8 | 88.1% ±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.4 to 88.7 |
| Reasoning (high) | 83.9% ±1.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 82.1 to 85.4 | 91.8% ±0.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 91.4 to 92.0 |
Claude Sonnet 5.5 vs Gemini 4 Hydrogen: Overview
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.
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 Hydrogen is a multimodal model from Google, positioned as a successor to Gemini 3.8 Flash with stronger agent and coding capabilities at Flash-class speed.
Frequently Asked Questions
On Roboflow's Vision Evals, Gemini 4 Hydrogen performed better. It scores higher on all five vision tasks and averages 87.3% (#3 of 69) against 77.6% (#14 of 69) 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 Hydrogen leads with 86.7% against 66.3%. This is the widest gap between the two models across the benchmark's tasks.
Claude Sonnet 5.5 is cheaper to run. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals task mix it averaged $0.0073 per sample against $0.0094. 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 13.2s. 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.