Gemini 4 Carbon vs Gemini 4 Hydrogen
Gemini 4 Carbon and Gemini 4 Hydrogen score 89.4% vs 87.3% averaged across five Vision Evals tasks (#1 and #3 of 69 models), so Gemini 4 Carbon leads overall.
- Gemini 4 Carbon wins 4 of the 5 tasks, with its widest lead on counting (90.1% vs 83.8%).
- Gemini 4 Carbon is about half the cost: $0.0061 vs $0.0094 overall average cost per sample.
- Gemini 4 Carbon is faster: 8.7s vs 13.2s per sample.
Roboflow Vision Evals. Full breakdown below.
Compare Gemini 4 Carbon vs Gemini 4 Hydrogen 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
Gemini 4 Carbon vs Gemini 4 Hydrogen on Vision Evals
Roboflow Vision Evals. Full breakdown below.
Gemini 4 Carbon vs Gemini 4 Hydrogen Comparison Table
Evals updated November 12, 2026
| Property | Gemini 4 Carbon | Gemini 4 Hydrogen |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | ||
| Category | closed | closed |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Nov 2026 | Nov 2026 |
| Context Window | 1.0M | 1.0M |
| Parameters | Unknown | Unknown |
| License | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Commercial use | commercial use per vendor terms | commercial use per vendor terms |
| Vision Tasks | ||
| Chart Question Answering | Supported | Not listed |
| Document Question Answering | Supported | Not listed |
| Image Tagging | Supported | Not listed |
| Multi-Label Classification | Supported | Not listed |
| Model Features | ||
Both support 3 more features | ||
Vision Evalsground-truth scores across 5 vision tasks, pooled at low effort | ||
| Overall | 89.4% | 87.3% |
| Avg cost / sample | $0.0061 | $0.0094 |
| Avg speed / sample | 8.71s | 13.23s |
| By task | ||
| Object Detection (low) | 84.5% ±0.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 84.2 to 84.8 | 81.0% ±0.8, Mean of 3 runs, range 80.3 to 81.9 |
| Object Detection (high) | 85.9% ±0.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 85.6 to 86.2 | 83.3% ±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 82.4 to 83.8 |
| Counting (low) | 90.1% ±1.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 89.2 to 91.9 | 83.8% ±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 82.4 to 86.5 |
| Counting (high) | 86.9% ±2.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 83.8 to 89.2 | 84.2% ±2.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 82.4 to 87.8 |
| Identification (low) | 93.8% ±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 93.8 to 93.8 | 96.9% ±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 96.9 to 96.9 |
| Identification (high) | 96.9% ±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 96.9 to 96.9 | 96.9% ±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 96.9 to 96.9 |
| OCR (low) | 87.2% | 86.7% |
| by category |
|
|
| OCR (high) | 89.7% | 87.2% |
| by category |
|
|
| Reasoning (low) | 91.4% ±1.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 90.1 to 93.4 | 88.1% ±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.4 to 88.7 |
| Reasoning (high) | 92.3% ±0.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 92.0 to 92.7 | 91.8% ±0.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 91.4 to 92.0 |
Gemini 4 Carbon vs Gemini 4 Hydrogen: Overview
Gemini 4 Carbon is a multimodal model from Google. It builds on Gemini 4 Argon and supports reasoning over text and images. Google describes improvements in coding and long-running tasks. Model weights are not publicly released.
Gemini 4 Hydrogen is a multimodal model from Google, positioned as a successor to Gemini 3.8 Flash with stronger agent and coding capabilities at Flash-class speed.
Frequently Asked Questions
On Roboflow's Vision Evals, Gemini 4 Carbon performed better. It scores higher on 4 of the five vision tasks and averages 89.4% (#1 of 69) against 87.3% (#3 of 69) for Gemini 4 Hydrogen. These scores measure vision capabilities only; either model may perform differently on work outside this benchmark's tasks.
Yes. On the Vision Evals Counting benchmark at low effort, Gemini 4 Carbon leads with 90.1% against 83.8%. This is the widest gap between the two models across the benchmark's tasks.
Gemini 4 Carbon is cheaper to run. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals task mix it averaged $0.0061 per sample against $0.0094. Actual costs depend on your image sizes, prompts, and output length.
Gemini 4 Carbon is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 8.7s per inference against 13.2s. 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 segmentation in the free Roboflow Playground. You can try it instantly, and a free account unlocks unlimited runs.