Gemini 4 Argon vs Grok 4.7
Compare Gemini 4 Argon and Grok 4.7 side-by-side. See how these vision models stack up in Object Detection, Image Captioning, OCR, Classification, and Open Prompt.
Compare Gemini 4 Argon vs Grok 4.7 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
Models in this comparison
Gemini 4 Argon vs Grok 4.7 on Vision Evals
Gemini 4 Argon scores higher on all five Vision Evals tasks.
The widest gap is Object Detection, where Gemini 4 Argon leads 82.5% to 40.4%.
Overall, Gemini 4 Argon averages 87.5% (#1 of 63) against 63.5% (#31 of 63) for Grok 4.7.
Gemini 4 Argon is both cheaper ($0.0058 vs $0.020 per sample) and faster (13.4s vs 33.3s per sample).
Gemini 4 Argon vs Grok 4.7 Comparison Table
Evals updated October 13, 2026Pricing updated October 13, 2026
| Property | Gemini 4 Argon | Grok 4.7 |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | SpaceXAI | |
| Category | closed | closed |
| Modality | multimodal | — |
| Release Date | Oct 2026 | Sep 2026 |
| Context Window | 1.0M | 500K |
| Parameters | Undisclosed | Unknown |
| License | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Commercial use | commercial use per vendor terms | commercial use per vendor terms |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | No published price | $2.00 |
| Output $/1M | No published price | $6.00 |
| Vision Tasks | ||
| Captioning | Demo | Demo |
| Chart Question Answering | Supported | Supported |
| Classification | Demo | Demo |
| Document Question Answering | Supported | Supported |
| Image Tagging | Supported | Supported |
| Multi-Label Classification | Supported | Supported |
| Object Detection | Demo | Demo |
| OCR | Demo | Demo |
| Vision Language | Supported | Supported |
| Visual Question Answering | Demo | Demo |
| Model Features | ||
| Foundation Vision | Supported | Not listed |
| LLMs with Vision Capabilities | Supported | Not listed |
| Multimodal Vision | Supported | Not listed |
Vision Evalsground-truth scores across 5 vision tasks, pooled at low effort | ||
| Overall | 87.5% | 63.5% |
| Avg cost / sample | $0.0058 | $0.020 |
| Avg speed / sample | 13.40s | 33.31s |
| By task | ||
| Object Detection (low) | 82.5% ±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 81.9 to 83.0 | 40.4% ±0.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 39.8 to 41.0 |
| Object Detection (high) | 85.1% ±0.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 84.3 to 85.5 | 41.2% ±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 39.6 to 42.8 |
| Counting (low) | 86.0% ±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 85.1 to 86.5 | 61.7% ±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 60.8 to 63.5 |
| Counting (high) | 90.5% ±1.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 89.2 to 91.9 | 60.8% ±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 59.5 to 62.2 |
| Identification (low) | 93.8% ±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 93.8 to 93.8 | 87.5% ±3.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 84.4 to 90.6 |
| Identification (high) | 96.9% ±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 96.9 to 96.9 | 80.2% ±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.1 to 81.3 |
| OCR (low) | 85.7% | 63.6% |
| by category |
|
|
| OCR (high) | 88.0% | – |
| by category |
| |
| Reasoning (low) | 89.4% ±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 88.1 to 90.7 | 64.2% ±2.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 62.3 to 66.9 |
| Reasoning (high) | 91.4% ±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 90.7 to 92.0 | 66.9% ±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 65.6 to 68.2 |
Gemini 4 Argon vs Grok 4.7: Overview
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.
Grok 4.7 is a proprietary multimodal reasoning model from SpaceXAI that accepts images alongside text and returns text-only output. On visual inputs it supports image captioning, visual question answering, OCR, document and chart question answering, and image classification and tagging, with all results expressed as generated text rather than bounding boxes or masks. Its 500,000 token context window leaves room for several images, long documents, or extended conversations about visual content in a single request.
The model exposes a configurable reasoning effort setting with low, medium, high, and xhigh levels (high by default), letting callers trade latency for the amount of deliberation spent on a prompt, including multi-step questions about an image. Built on a larger base model than Grok 4.6 with extended reinforcement learning on harder tasks, it works longer on difficult problems and checks its own work more carefully at the same serving speed. SpaceXAI's launch materials focus on coding and agentic knowledge work and report no image benchmark results.
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 63.5% (#31 of 63) for Grok 4.7. These scores measure vision capabilities only; either model may perform differently on work outside this benchmark's tasks.
Yes. On the Vision Evals Object Detection benchmark at low effort, Gemini 4 Argon leads with 82.5% against 40.4%. 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 $0.020. Actual costs depend on your image sizes, prompts, and output length.
Gemini 4 Argon is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 13.4s per inference against 33.3s. 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.