Roboflow

Gemini 3.8 Flash vs Gemini 4 Argon

Compare Gemini 3.8 Flash and Gemini 4 Argon side-by-side. See how these vision models stack up in Object Detection, Image Captioning, OCR, Classification, and Open Prompt.

Compare Gemini 3.8 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 3.8 Flash
Run to compare this model.
GoogleGemini 4 Argon
Run to compare this model.

Models in this comparison

Gemini 3.8 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 68.1%.

Overall, Gemini 3.8 Flash averages 79.8% (#7 of 63) against 87.5% (#1 of 63) for Gemini 4 Argon.

Gemini 3.8 Flash is both cheaper ($0.0041 vs $0.0058 per sample) and faster (12.8s vs 13.4s per sample).

Gemini 3.8 FlashGemini 4 Argon

Gemini 3.8 Flash vs Gemini 4 Argon Comparison Table

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

PropertyGemini 3.8 FlashGemini 4 Argon
OrganizationGoogleGoogle
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$0.750$2.00
Output $/1M$3.75$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
79.8%
87.5%
Avg cost / sample$0.0041$0.0058
Avg speed / sample12.76s13.40s
By task
Object Detection (low)
68.1%
±0.8, Mean of 3 runs, range 67.3 to 69.0
$0.0041
82.5%
±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 81.9 to 83.0
$0.011
Object Detection (high)
74.8%
±1.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 73.4 to 75.6
$0.021
85.1%
±0.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 84.3 to 85.5
$0.027
Counting (low)
78.8%
±2.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 75.7 to 81.1
$0.0036
86.0%
±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 85.1 to 86.5
$0.0024
Counting (high)
79.3%
±1.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.4 to 81.1
$0.024
90.5%
±1.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 89.2 to 91.9
$0.010
Identification (low)
97.9%
±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 96.9 to 100.0
$0.0014
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
$0.0034
96.9%
±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 96.9 to 96.9
$0.0057
OCR (low)
72.8%
$0.0045
85.7%
$0.0051
by category
Single value
73.5%
Transcription
91.3%
Structured JSON
86.1%
Text localization
26.4%
Single value
78.3%
Transcription
95.5%
Structured JSON
92.6%
Text localization
81.5%
OCR (high)
78.7%
$0.036
88.0%
$0.022
by category
Single value
70.9%
Transcription
94.1%
Structured JSON
90.9%
Text localization
58.6%
Single value
80.0%
Transcription
98.8%
Structured JSON
94.8%
Text localization
84.7%
Reasoning (low)
81.2%
±0.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 80.8 to 81.5
$0.0034
89.4%
±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 88.1 to 90.7
$0.0024
Reasoning (high)
84.5%
±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 83.4 to 85.4
$0.021
91.4%
±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 90.7 to 92.0
$0.013

Gemini 3.8 Flash vs Gemini 4 Argon: Overview

Gemini 3.8 Flash

Gemini 3.8 Flash is a natively multimodal reasoning model in Google's Gemini 3 series, positioned as the speed and cost oriented Flash tier while targeting long-horizon software engineering, autonomous agents, and enterprise workflows. It accepts text, images, video, audio, and PDF documents in a single request and returns text, with an input limit of 1,048,576 tokens and an output limit of 65,536 tokens. Thinking is configurable at low, medium, and high levels, and the model supports function calling, code execution, structured outputs, context caching, search and Maps grounding, file search, and computer use in preview. Image generation, audio generation, and the Live API are not supported.

On vision oriented evaluations the model reports 86.2% on CharXiv Reasoning for chart and figure synthesis and 87.8% on LVBench for long video understanding in agentic mode, alongside 90.8% on Terminal-Bench 2.1 and 61.6% on SWE-Bench Pro for coding. Following Gemini API conventions, it can localize 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 in addition to captioning, document parsing, and visual question answering. The knowledge cutoff is March 2026, though coverage in some domains reflects the January 2025 cutoff shared across the Gemini 3 family.

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 79.8% (#7 of 63) for Gemini 3.8 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 68.1%. This is the widest gap between the two models across the benchmark's tasks.

Gemini 3.8 Flash is cheaper to run. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals task mix it averaged $0.0041 per sample against $0.0058. Gemini 3.8 Flash is priced at $0.75 per 1M input tokens and $3.75 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.

Gemini 3.8 Flash is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 12.8s 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 object detection and image captioning in the free Roboflow Playground. You can try it instantly, and a free account unlocks unlimited runs.