Gemini 4 Argon vs Qwen3.5 9b
Compare Gemini 4 Argon and Qwen3.5 9b side-by-side. See how these vision models stack up in Image Captioning, OCR, and Open Prompt.
Compare Gemini 4 Argon vs Qwen3.5 9b live
Run the same image across every model that supports a task and compare their outputs side-by-side.
Extract and compare text from images across multiple models.
Upload an image
Drag and drop an image here, or click to browse
Models in this comparison
Gemini 4 Argon vs Qwen3.5 9b on Vision Evals
Gemini 4 Argon scores higher on all 4 Vision Evals tasks.
The widest gap is Object Detection, where Gemini 4 Argon leads 82.5% to 38.1%.
Overall, Gemini 4 Argon averages 87.5% (#1 of 63) against 56.0% (#42 of 63) for Qwen3.5 9b.
Qwen3.5 9b is cheaper ($0.0021 vs $0.0058 per sample), while Gemini 4 Argon is faster (13.4s vs 41.4s per sample).
Gemini 4 Argon vs Qwen3.5 9b Comparison Table
Evals updated October 13, 2026Pricing updated October 13, 2026
| Property | Gemini 4 Argon | Qwen3.5 9b |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | Qwen | |
| Category | closed | open |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Oct 2026 | Mar 2026 |
| Context Window | 1.0M | 262K |
| Parameters | Undisclosed | 9B |
| License | Proprietary | Apache 2.0 |
| Commercial use | commercial use per vendor terms | free for commercial use |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $2.00 | $0.100 |
| Output $/1M | $10.00 | $0.150 |
| Vision Tasks | ||
| Captioning | Demo | Demo |
| Chart Question Answering | Supported | Supported |
| Classification | Demo | Supported |
| Document Question Answering | Supported | Supported |
| Image Tagging | Supported | Supported |
| Multi-Label Classification | Supported | Supported |
| Object Detection | Demo | Supported |
| OCR | Demo | Demo |
| Vision Language | Supported | Supported |
| Visual Question Answering | Demo | Demo |
| Model Features | ||
| Foundation Vision | Supported | Supported |
| LLMs with Vision Capabilities | Supported | Supported |
| Multimodal Vision | Supported | Supported |
Vision Evalsground-truth scores across 5 vision tasks, pooled at low effort | ||
| Overall | 87.5% | 56.0% 4/5 tasks |
| Quantizationsself-hosted | ||
| Avg cost / sample | $0.0058 | $0.0021 |
| Avg speed / sample | 13.40s | 41.36s |
| By task | ||
| Object Detection (low) | 82.5% ±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 81.9 to 83.0 | 38.1% ±5.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 33.5 to 44.9 |
| Object Detection (high) | 85.1% ±0.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 84.3 to 85.5 | – |
| Counting (low) | 86.0% ±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 85.1 to 86.5 | 56.8% ±1.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 55.4 to 58.1 |
| Counting (high) | 90.5% ±1.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 89.2 to 91.9 | – |
| Identification (low) | 93.8% ±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 93.8 to 93.8 | 83.3% ±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 81.3 to 84.4 |
| Identification (high) | 96.9% ±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 96.9 to 96.9 | – |
| OCR (low) | 85.7% | – |
| by category |
| |
| OCR (high) | 88.0% | – |
| by category |
| |
| Reasoning (low) | 89.4% ±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 88.1 to 90.7 | 45.9% ±1.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 44.4 to 47.7 |
| Reasoning (high) | 91.4% ±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 90.7 to 92.0 | – |
Gemini 4 Argon vs Qwen3.5 9b: 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.
Qwen3.5-9B is a 9-billion-parameter multimodal foundation model developed by Alibaba Cloud's Qwen team, released on March 2, 2026 as part of the Qwen3.5 model family. Designed for efficient multimodal reasoning and long-context language tasks, it notably outperforms the older Qwen3-30B, a model more than three times its size, on key benchmarks including GPQA Diamond, IFEval, and LongBench.
The model supports vision-language inputs through an early-fusion multimodal architecture built on a dense hybrid foundation of Gated Delta Networks and Gated Attention. It can also operate in a text-only mode by skipping the vision encoder during inference. It provides a 262,144-token context window (extensible to ~1M tokens via YaRN) and is released under the Apache License 2.0. Within the current AI landscape, Qwen3.5-9B offers a strong balance of capability and efficiency, making it well-suited for multimodal assistants, document analysis, long-context reasoning, and developer-deployed agentic systems.
Frequently Asked Questions
On Roboflow's Vision Evals, Gemini 4 Argon performed better. It scores higher on all 4 vision tasks and averages 87.5% (#1 of 63) against 56.0% (#42 of 63) for Qwen3.5 9b. 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 38.1%. This is the widest gap between the two models across the benchmark's tasks.
Qwen3.5 9b is cheaper to run. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals task mix it averaged $0.0021 per sample against $0.0058. 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 41.4s. 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.