Roboflow

Gemini 4 Argon vs Qwen3.8 Max

Compare Gemini 4 Argon and Qwen3.8 Max 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 Qwen3.8 Max 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 4 Argon
Run to compare this model.
QwenQwen3.8 Max
Run to compare this model.

Models in this comparison

Gemini 4 Argon vs Qwen3.8 Max on Vision Evals

Gemini 4 Argon scores higher on all five Vision Evals tasks.

The widest gap is Reasoning, where Gemini 4 Argon leads 89.4% to 75.9%.

Overall, Gemini 4 Argon averages 87.5% (#1 of 63) against 79.3% (#8 of 63) for Qwen3.8 Max.

Gemini 4 Argon is both cheaper ($0.0058 vs $0.0080 per sample) and faster (13.4s vs 18.9s per sample).

Gemini 4 ArgonQwen3.8 Max

Gemini 4 Argon vs Qwen3.8 Max Comparison Table

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

PropertyGemini 4 ArgonQwen3.8 Max
OrganizationGoogleQwen
Categoryclosedclosed
Modalitymultimodalmultimodal
Release DateOct 2026Aug 2026
Context Window1.0M984K
ParametersUndisclosed2.4T total, ~95B active
LicenseProprietaryApache 2.0
Commercial usecommercial use per vendor termsfree for commercial use
Pricing per 1M tokens
Input $/1M$2.00No published price
Output $/1M$10.00No 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
87.5%
79.3%
Avg cost / sample$0.0058$0.0080
Avg speed / sample13.40s18.95s
By task
Object Detection (low)
82.5%
±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 81.9 to 83.0
$0.011
76.7%
±0.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 76.5 to 77.1
$0.012
Object Detection (high)
85.1%
±0.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 84.3 to 85.5
$0.027
78.4%
±0.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.1 to 78.9
$0.030
Counting (low)
86.0%
±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 85.1 to 86.5
$0.0024
81.1%
±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.4 to 82.4
$0.0046
Counting (high)
90.5%
±1.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 89.2 to 91.9
$0.010
81.1%
±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 81.1 to 81.1
$0.0091
Identification (low)
93.8%
±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 93.8 to 93.8
$0.0024
88.5%
±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.5 to 90.6
$0.0027
Identification (high)
96.9%
±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 96.9 to 96.9
$0.0057
89.6%
±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.5 to 90.6
$0.0037
OCR (low)
85.7%
$0.0051
74.0%
$0.0077
by category
Single value
78.3%
Transcription
95.5%
Structured JSON
92.6%
Text localization
81.5%
Single value
63.9%
Transcription
95.2%
Structured JSON
85.4%
Text localization
59.0%
OCR (high)
88.0%
$0.022
71.8%
$0.028
by category
Single value
80.0%
Transcription
98.8%
Structured JSON
94.8%
Text localization
84.7%
Single value
61.7%
Transcription
94.8%
Structured JSON
81.6%
Text localization
59.6%
Reasoning (low)
89.4%
±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 88.1 to 90.7
$0.0024
75.9%
±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 73.5 to 77.5
$0.0048
Reasoning (high)
91.4%
±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 90.7 to 92.0
$0.013
80.3%
±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.2 to 82.1
$0.011

Gemini 4 Argon vs Qwen3.8 Max: Overview

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.

Qwen3.8 Max

Qwen3.8 Max is the flagship tier of Alibaba's Qwen3.8 family, a sparse mixture-of-experts multimodal model with roughly 2.4 trillion total parameters of which about 95 billion activate per token, which keeps serving cost and latency well below what the total parameter count would imply. It builds on the architectural foundation established by Qwen3.5 and accepts text, images, video, and documents as input while producing text output. Reported context handling reaches close to one million tokens, with a maximum generation length of 131,072 tokens, so the model is aimed at long-horizon agentic work such as repository-scale coding, multi-step research, data analysis, and office document workflows.

For vision work the model performs image and video understanding, document and chart interpretation, text recognition inside images, and grounded visual question answering, and Alibaba reports gains concentrated in multimodal and agentic evaluation categories rather than general reasoning. Published figures include 86.6 on Terminal-Bench 2.1, 67.7 on SWE-bench Pro, 93.0 on PaperBench, 82.8 on IFBench, and 92.6 on GPQA Diamond. It is the first model in the Max tier of the Qwen line for which the team states weights will be released publicly, alongside a smaller Qwen3.8 27B checkpoint. No training or safety model card has been published.