Coding work
Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks
Gemini 4 Argon
Gemini 4 Argon leads on the public coding lane, 68.4 to 62.5, with Supported evidence for both models, although the 90% intervals overlap.
Confidence: limited
Claude Opus 4.8 vs Gemini 4 Argon
Updated September 30, 2026. Rank says Claude Opus 4.8 is ahead. Price, access, and your workload can each overturn that. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty.
Both of these models will change. Get the price, version and retirement notices for the pair, each with its source. Follow model changes
Share or export
Decision reading
Claude Opus 4.8 has the higher public score estimate, 70 versus 64.59, but the 90% score intervals overlap. Treat that as a lead, not a settled winner. 3 results are shared. Category rows resting on Estimated evidence or different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.
- Shared results
- 3
- Claude Opus 4.8 only
- 36
- Gemini 4 Argon only
- 14
- Like-for-like categories
- 2 / 8
Supported: Claude Opus 4.8 · Estimated: Gemini 4 ArgonHow the comparison works
Which one for your work
Recommendations appear only when a shared evidence basis or an explicit operating constraint supports the call. Secondary and unsupported use cases stay disclosed below the initial list.
Chat turn cost
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
Gemini 4 Argon
Gemini 4 Argon has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Confidence: listed-ratesCache-heavy agent loop cost
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
Gemini 4 Argon
Gemini 4 Argon has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Claude Opus 4.8 has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.
Confidence: rate-fallback
Show secondary and unsupported calls
Repository review cost
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
Gemini 4 Argon
Gemini 4 Argon has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Confidence: listed-ratesAgentic work
Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion
Not enough matched evidence
Gemini 4 Argon is scored on Estimated evidence for agentic, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like.
Confidence: limitedLong documents
Prompts that approach the documented context limit
Not enough matched evidence
A complete context comparison is not sourced.
Confidence: limited
Which one for a specific job
Choose a job from the LLM Selector's task catalog to see the category row it rests on, under the same basis rules as the table below. A directional row stays directional; choosing a job never creates a winner.
The same task catalog as the LLM Selector. Each job names the evidence surface it rests on; nothing here adds a new score.
62.5Claude Opus 4.868.4Gemini 4 Argon
Like-for-like · BenchAlign v5.7
Gemini 4 Argon leads the like-for-like coding row, although the 90% intervals overlap.
Coding scores combine specific tasks and setups. Match the editor, harness, and effort to your workflow.
Same basis rules as the category table below
What is actually comparable
Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results present for only one model describe coverage, not superiority.
36 Claude Opus 4.8 only
3 Shared
14 Gemini 4 Argon only
1 category rests on Estimated evidence or different evidence sets. Those rows remain visible for coverage context but do not name a winner.
Shape of the matched evidence
Only shared public evidence is shown. Sparse evidence stays a ruled list rather than being closed into a radar shape.
Too few matched category axes support a radar. The ruled list below shows only shared benchmark results; positions use each benchmark’s normalized display scale when available.
OSWorld 2.0Agentic
Normalized gap 48.6Claude Opus 4.8:20.6%Gemini 4 Argon:69.2%
Bars run 0–100 on each benchmark’s normalized display scale
Category results, on a stated basis
Each row shows the public-lane category score for both models: the BenchAlign v5.7 lane for agentic, coding, and knowledge, and the weighted public rows elsewhere, with the same rank each model page reports. A row is like-for-like only when both scores rest on Supported evidence or the same weighted set. Directional and not-comparable rows remain visible, but they never receive a winner.
Coding
Like-for-like- Claude Opus 4.8
- 62.5
- Supported · #15/144
- Gemini 4 Argon
- 68.4
- Supported · #8/144
- Basis
- BenchAlign v5.7 lane · 11 vs 4 public rows
- Reading
- Gemini 4 Argon leads · intervals overlap
Knowledge
Like-for-like- Claude Opus 4.8
- 70.0
- Supported · #14/170
- Gemini 4 Argon
- 72.9
- Supported · #11/170
- Basis
- BenchAlign v5.7 lane · 6 vs 1 public rows
- Reading
- Gemini 4 Argon leads · intervals overlap
Agentic
Directional only- Claude Opus 4.8
- 61.7
- Supported · #16/119
- Gemini 4 Argon
- 63.7
- Estimated · #14/119
- Basis
- BenchAlign v5.7 lane · 12 vs 7 public rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Reasoning
Not comparable- Claude Opus 4.8
- 59.1
- #22/27
- Gemini 4 Argon
- 77.1
- Unranked · 3 rankable rows
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 2 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multimodal
Not comparable- Claude Opus 4.8
- 87.7
- #7/49
- Gemini 4 Argon
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 2 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multilingual
Not comparable- Claude Opus 4.8
- Not ranked
- Gemini 4 Argon
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Instruction following
Not comparable- Claude Opus 4.8
- 74.0
- #60/124
- Gemini 4 Argon
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Math
Not comparable- Claude Opus 4.8
- 65.2
- #2/7
- Gemini 4 Argon
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 3 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
| Category | Claude Opus 4.8 | Gemini 4 Argon | Basis | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | 62.5Supported · #15/144 | 68.4Supported · #8/144 | Like-for-likeBenchAlign v5.7 lane · 11 vs 4 public rows | Gemini 4 Argon leads · intervals overlap |
| Knowledge | 70.0Supported · #14/170 | 72.9Supported · #11/170 | Like-for-likeBenchAlign v5.7 lane · 6 vs 1 public rows | Gemini 4 Argon leads · intervals overlap |
| Agentic | 61.7Supported · #16/119 | 63.7Estimated · #14/119 | Directional onlyBenchAlign v5.7 lane · 12 vs 7 public rows | Directional only |
| Reasoning | 59.1#22/27 | 77.1Unranked · 3 rankable rows | Not comparableProvisional lane · 2 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Multimodal | 87.7#7/49 | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 2 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Multilingual | Not ranked | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Instruction following | 74.0#60/124 | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Math | 65.2#2/7 | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 3 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
Ranks count the models scored in each category’s lane, so the agentic, coding, and knowledge denominators (BenchAlign v5.7) differ from the provisional-lane categories. Unranked scores sit on the provisional lane’s scale but never name a winner. Like-for-like rows within 0.5 points read as a practical tie.
Supported evidence per lane · bars run 0–100Methodology
What each workload costs
Three fixed token mixes turn per-token rates into comparable decisions. Each scenario states context fit and whether cached input had to fall back to the published list-input rate.
Chat turn
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
- Claude Opus 4.8
- $0.0175
- Fits in one request
- Gemini 4 Argon
- $0.007
- Fit state unavailable
Gemini 4 Argon has the lower modeled cost
Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Repository review
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
- Claude Opus 4.8
- $0.325
- Fits in one request
- Gemini 4 Argon
- $0.13
- Fit state unavailable
Gemini 4 Argon has the lower modeled cost
Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Cache-heavy agent loop
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
- Claude Opus 4.8
- $1.35
- Fits in one request
- Cached input priced at the published list-input rate
- Gemini 4 Argon
- $0.16
- Fit state unavailable
Gemini 4 Argon has the lower modeled cost
Claude Opus 4.8 has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.
Cached input falls back to the list input rate only where a cached rate is unpublished
Specification differences
Sourced differences are shown directly. Missing facts stay explicit instead of being inferred from a model name or family.
SpecificationClaude Opus 4.8Gemini 4 Argon
Context window
Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.
Claude Opus 4.8
Gemini 4 Argon
Not sourced
Google Gemini 4 Argon announcementAPI model ID
Claude Opus 4.8
claude-opus-4-8
Anthropic model overviewGemini 4 Argon
Not sourced
Cached-input rate
A missing cached-input rate falls back to the listed input rate only in the stated workload estimate.
Claude Opus 4.8
Not published
Gemini 4 Argon
$0.1 per 1M cached input tokens
Google Gemini 4 Argon announcementDocumented inputs
Claude Opus 4.8
text, image
Anthropic model overviewGemini 4 Argon
Not sourced
Documented outputs
Claude Opus 4.8
Gemini 4 Argon
Not sourced
Provider availability
Claude Opus 4.8
Generally Available · Claude API
Anthropic model overviewGemini 4 Argon
Limited Access · Fairwind Program
Google Gemini 4 Argon announcementReasoning profile
Claude Opus 4.8
Reasoning
Gemini 4 Argon
Reasoning
Weight access
Claude Opus 4.8
Proprietary
Gemini 4 Argon
Proprietary
License
Claude Opus 4.8
Proprietary
Gemini 4 Argon
Proprietary
Release date
Claude Opus 4.8
2026-05-28
Gemini 4 Argon
2026-09-30
If you already use one of these models
- Deployment change
- The models list different providers, so authentication, endpoint behavior, limits, and feature support may change.
- Quality signal
- Claude Opus 4.8 has the higher public score estimate, 70 versus 64.59, but the 90% score intervals overlap.
- Workload cost
- Repository review: $0.325 vs $0.13. Cache-heavy agent loop: $1.35 vs $0.16.
- Context tradeoff
- A complete documented context comparison is not available.
Run the same representative tasks against both endpoints before changing production traffic.
Questions
Which is better, Claude Opus 4.8 or Gemini 4 Argon?
Claude Opus 4.8 has the higher public score estimate, 70 versus 64.59, but the 90% score intervals overlap. The higher estimate is not a decisive winner because the uncertainty ranges overlap.
Which is better for coding, Claude Opus 4.8 or Gemini 4 Argon?
Gemini 4 Argon leads the public coding lane, 68.4 to 62.5, with Supported evidence for both models, although the 90% intervals overlap.
Which is better for agentic tasks, Claude Opus 4.8 or Gemini 4 Argon?
Gemini 4 Argon scores higher for agentic tasks on the public lane, 63.7 to 61.7. Gemini 4 Argon is scored on Estimated evidence for agentic tasks, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like. BenchLM does not name a winner for agentic tasks from a directional reading; read the shared benchmark rows directly and test the models on the same task set.
Which costs less, Claude Opus 4.8 or Gemini 4 Argon?
For the stated presets, chat costs $0.0175 on Claude Opus 4.8 and $0.007 on Gemini 4 Argon; repository review costs $0.325 and $0.13; the cache-heavy agent loop costs $1.35 and $0.16. Claude Opus 4.8 has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.
Which has the larger context window, Claude Opus 4.8 or Gemini 4 Argon?
A complete documented context-window comparison is not available.
Benchmark evidence
The full public result ledger is available for audit without forcing a wide desktop table onto a phone.
Browse raw public benchmark evidence53 rows
Agentic
Terminal-Bench 3.0
Claude Opus 4.821.1%SourceGemini 4 Argon—Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.1
Claude Opus 4.874.6%SourceGemini 4 Argon—Not directly comparable
BrowseComp
Claude Opus 4.884.3%SourceGemini 4 Argon—Not directly comparable
DeepSearchQA
Claude Opus 4.893.1%SourceGemini 4 Argon—Not directly comparable
OSWorld-Verified
Claude Opus 4.883.4%SourceGemini 4 Argon—Not directly comparable
Finance Agent v2
Claude Opus 4.853.9%SourceGemini 4 Argon65.4%SourceGemini 4 Argon leads this result
MCP Atlas
Claude Opus 4.882.2%SourceGemini 4 Argon—Not directly comparable
Toolathlon
Claude Opus 4.859.9%SourceGemini 4 Argon—Not directly comparable
Gert Labs
Claude Opus 4.872.97%SourceGemini 4 Argon—Not directly comparable
ResearchClawBench
Claude Opus 4.821.1%SourceGemini 4 Argon—Not directly comparable
OSWorld 2.0
Claude Opus 4.820.6%SourceGemini 4 Argon69.2%SourceGemini 4 Argon leads this result
Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals)
Claude Opus 4.871.9%SourceGemini 4 Argon—Not directly comparable
AutomationBench
Claude Opus 4.8—Gemini 4 Argon51.3%SourceNot directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 4.0
Claude Opus 4.8—Gemini 4 Argon57.40%SourceNot directly comparable
Agents' Last Exam
Claude Opus 4.8—Gemini 4 Argon39.5%SourceNot directly comparable
CWE-bench v1
Claude Opus 4.8—Gemini 4 Argon68.0%SourceNot directly comparable
Terminal-Bench-Science 0.1 (6x verifier timeout)
Claude Opus 4.8—Gemini 4 Argon57.6%SourceNot directly comparable
Coding
SWE-bench Verified
Claude Opus 4.888.6%SourceGemini 4 Argon—Not directly comparable
SWE-bench Pro
Claude Opus 4.869.2%SourceGemini 4 Argon—Not directly comparable
SWE Multilingual
Claude Opus 4.884.4%SourceGemini 4 Argon—Not directly comparable
SWE Multimodal
Claude Opus 4.838.4%SourceGemini 4 Argon—Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.1
Claude Opus 4.874.6%SourceGemini 4 Argon—Not directly comparable
cursorBench31
Claude Opus 4.858.4%SourceGemini 4 Argon—Not directly comparable
cursorBench32
Claude Opus 4.862.3%SourceGemini 4 Argon—Not directly comparable
FrontierCode 1.1 Main
Claude Opus 4.846.5%SourceGemini 4 Argon—Not directly comparable
LiveCodeBench (Vals)
Claude Opus 4.887.8%SourceGemini 4 Argon—Not directly comparable
SWE-bench (Vals)
Claude Opus 4.888.6%SourceGemini 4 Argon—Not directly comparable
PostTrainBench v1.1
Claude Opus 4.832.9%SourceGemini 4 Argon45.3%SourceGemini 4 Argon leads this result
DeepSWE
Claude Opus 4.8—Gemini 4 Argon77.9%SourceNot directly comparable
FrontierSWE v2
Claude Opus 4.8—Gemini 4 Argon55.1%SourceNot directly comparable
Vibe Code Bench
Claude Opus 4.8—Gemini 4 Argon91.90%SourceNot directly comparable
Reasoning
ARC-AGI-2
Claude Opus 4.872.1%SourceGemini 4 Argon—Not directly comparable
ARC-AGI-3
Claude Opus 4.81.5%SourceGemini 4 Argon—Not directly comparable
Graphwalks BFS 128K
Claude Opus 4.8—Gemini 4 Argon99.7%SourceNot directly comparable
GraphWalks BFS 256K–1M
Claude Opus 4.8—Gemini 4 Argon84.2%SourceNot directly comparable
Multimodal
OfficeQA Pro
Claude Opus 4.866.2%SourceGemini 4 Argon—Not directly comparable
ScreenSpot Pro
Claude Opus 4.887.9%SourceGemini 4 Argon—Not directly comparable
CharXiv
Claude Opus 4.889.9%SourceGemini 4 Argon—Not directly comparable
CharXiv w/o tools
Claude Opus 4.880.5%SourceGemini 4 Argon—Not directly comparable
Chartography (no tools)
Claude Opus 4.8—Gemini 4 Argon71.6%SourceNot directly comparable
LVBench
Claude Opus 4.8—Gemini 4 Argon91.7%SourceNot directly comparable
Knowledge
GPQA
Claude Opus 4.893.6%SourceGemini 4 Argon—Not directly comparable
GPQA-D
Claude Opus 4.893.6%SourceGemini 4 Argon—Not directly comparable
HLE
Claude Opus 4.857.9%SourceGemini 4 Argon—Not directly comparable
HLE w/o tools
Claude Opus 4.849.8%SourceGemini 4 Argon—Not directly comparable
GPQA Diamond (Vals)
Claude Opus 4.892.4%SourceGemini 4 Argon—Not directly comparable
MMLU-Pro (Vals)
Claude Opus 4.889.6%SourceGemini 4 Argon—Not directly comparable
LABBench2
Claude Opus 4.8—Gemini 4 Argon88.8%SourceNot directly comparable
Multilingual
INCLUDE
Claude Opus 4.887.6%SourceGemini 4 Argon—Not directly comparable
Instruction following
Gray Swan IPI (15 attempts)
Claude Opus 4.8—Gemini 4 Argon0.7%SourceNot directly comparable
Math
53 public results · 3 shared
Watch Claude Opus 4.8 vs Gemini 4 Argon
One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.
Read a sample issueJoin 2,000+ readers.
Last updated September 30, 2026