Roboflow

Gemini 3.7 Flash vs Gemini 4 Argon

Compare Gemini 3.7 Flash and Gemini 4 Argon side-by-side. See how these vision models stack up in Image Captioning, Open Prompt, Classification, OCR, and Object Detection.

Compare Gemini 3.7 Flash 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
GoogleGemini 3.7 Flash
Run to compare this model.
GoogleGemini 4 Argon
Run to compare this model.

Models in this comparison

Gemini 3.7 Flash 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 70.5%.

Overall, Gemini 3.7 Flash averages 80.1% (#6 of 63) against 87.5% (#1 of 63) for Gemini 4 Argon.

Gemini 3.7 Flash is both cheaper ($0.0033 vs $0.0058 per sample) and faster (11.0s vs 13.4s per sample).

Gemini 3.7 FlashGemini 4 Argon

Gemini 3.7 Flash vs Gemini 4 Argon Comparison Table

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

PropertyGemini 3.7 FlashGemini 4 Argon
OrganizationGoogleGoogle
Categoryclosedclosed
Modalitymultimodalmultimodal
Release DateAug 2026Oct 2026
Context Window1.0M1.0M
ParametersUndisclosedUndisclosed
LicenseProprietaryProprietary
Commercial usecommercial use per vendor termscommercial use per vendor terms
Pricing per 1M tokens
Input $/1M$0.750No published price
Output $/1M$3.75No 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
80.1%
87.5%
Avg cost / sample$0.0033$0.0058
Avg speed / sample11.04s13.40s
By task
Object Detection (low)
70.5%
±1.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 69.4 to 71.5
$0.0047
82.5%
±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 81.9 to 83.0
$0.011
Object Detection (high)
74.3%
±0.8, Mean of 3 runs, range 73.3 to 75.0
$0.0089
85.1%
±0.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 84.3 to 85.5
$0.027
Counting (low)
78.4%
±1.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 77.0 to 79.7
$0.0025
86.0%
±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 85.1 to 86.5
$0.0024
Counting (high)
79.3%
±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 77.0 to 81.1
$0.0056
90.5%
±1.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 89.2 to 91.9
$0.010
Identification (low)
96.9%
±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 96.9 to 96.9
$0.0013
93.8%
±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 93.8 to 93.8
$0.0024
Identification (high)
96.9%
±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 96.9 to 96.9
$0.0021
96.9%
±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 96.9 to 96.9
$0.0057
OCR (low)
73.9%
$0.0032
85.7%
$0.0051
by category
Single value
74.8%
Transcription
91.1%
Structured JSON
86.7%
Text localization
29.4%
Single value
78.3%
Transcription
95.5%
Structured JSON
92.6%
Text localization
81.5%
OCR (high)
78.8%
$0.010
88.0%
$0.022
by category
Single value
71.7%
Transcription
91.9%
Structured JSON
90.6%
Text localization
59.2%
Single value
80.0%
Transcription
98.8%
Structured JSON
94.8%
Text localization
84.7%
Reasoning (low)
80.8%
±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.8 to 82.8
$0.0022
89.4%
±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 88.1 to 90.7
$0.0024
Reasoning (high)
81.9%
±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 80.1 to 82.8
$0.0050
91.4%
±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 90.7 to 92.0
$0.013

Gemini 3.7 Flash vs Gemini 4 Argon: Overview

Gemini 3.7 Flash

Gemini 3.7 Flash is a proprietary multimodal model from Google, positioned in the Flash branch of the Gemini 3 series that trades some of the capacity of the larger Pro models for lower latency and lower cost per token. It accepts interleaved text and image input alongside other modalities handled by the Gemini family and returns text, and it continues the series pattern of exposing a configurable thinking budget so that reasoning effort can be scaled up for harder problems or reduced for high throughput extraction, routing and classification work. The model is announced roughly three weeks after Gemini 3.6 Flash, part of an unusually fast iteration cadence within the Flash line.

Google reports gains concentrated in agentic coding and front end generation, citing a WebDev Arena Elo of 1588 for this release compared with 1538 for the preceding Flash model, and describes it as producing more functional layouts and more feature complete applications in fewer prompts. Weights are not published and the architecture, parameter count and training corpus are undisclosed, consistent with prior Gemini releases. Visual capability follows the Flash lineage, covering image and document understanding, chart and diagram interpretation, text recognition in images, and general visual question answering.

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 80.1% (#6 of 63) for Gemini 3.7 Flash. 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 70.5%. This is the widest gap between the two models across the benchmark's tasks.

Gemini 3.7 Flash is cheaper to run. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals task mix it averaged $0.0033 per sample against $0.0058. Actual costs depend on your image sizes, prompts, and output length.

Gemini 3.7 Flash 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 open prompts in the free Roboflow Playground. You can try it instantly, and a free account unlocks unlimited runs.