Gemini 4 Carbon vs Grok 4.7
Gemini 4 Carbon and Grok 4.7 score 89.4% vs 63.5% averaged across five Vision Evals tasks (#1 and #36 of 68 models), so Gemini 4 Carbon leads overall.
- Gemini 4 Carbon wins all 5 tasks, with its widest lead on object detection (84.5% vs 40.4%).
- Gemini 4 Carbon is about a third of the cost: $0.0061 vs $0.020 overall average cost per sample.
- Gemini 4 Carbon is faster: 8.7s vs 33.3s per sample.
Roboflow Vision Evals. Full breakdown below.
Compare Gemini 4 Carbon 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
Gemini 4 Carbon vs Grok 4.7 on Vision Evals
Roboflow Vision Evals. Full breakdown below.
Gemini 4 Carbon vs Grok 4.7 Comparison Table
Evals updated November 10, 2026Pricing updated November 10, 2026
| Property | Gemini 4 Carbon | Grok 4.7 |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | SpaceXAI | |
| Category | closed | closed |
| Modality | multimodal | — |
| Release Date | Nov 2026 | Sep 2026 |
| Context Window | 1.0M | 500K |
| Parameters | Unknown | 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 | ||
| Promptable Concept Segmentation | Demo | Not listed |
| 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 | 89.4% | 63.5% |
| Avg cost / sample | $0.0061 | $0.020 |
| Avg speed / sample | 8.71s | 33.31s |
| By task | ||
| Object Detection (low) | 84.5% ±0.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 84.2 to 84.8 | 40.4% ±0.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 39.8 to 41.0 |
| Object Detection (high) | 85.9% ±0.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 85.6 to 86.2 | 41.2% ±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 39.6 to 42.8 |
| Counting (low) | 90.1% ±1.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 89.2 to 91.9 | 61.7% ±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 60.8 to 63.5 |
| Counting (high) | 86.9% ±2.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 83.8 to 89.2 | 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) | 87.2% | 63.6% |
| by category |
|
|
| OCR (high) | 89.7% | – |
| by category |
| |
| Reasoning (low) | 91.4% ±1.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 90.1 to 93.4 | 64.2% ±2.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 62.3 to 66.9 |
| Reasoning (high) | 92.3% ±0.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 92.0 to 92.7 | 66.9% ±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 65.6 to 68.2 |
Gemini 4 Carbon vs Grok 4.7: 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.
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 Carbon performed better. It scores higher on all five vision tasks and averages 89.4% (#1 of 68) against 63.5% (#36 of 68) 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 Carbon leads with 84.5% against 40.4%. 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 $0.020. 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 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 image captioning and OCR in the free Roboflow Playground. You can try it instantly, and a free account unlocks unlimited runs.