Skip to main content
BenchLM

Claude Opus 5 vs Gemini 4 Argon

Updated September 30, 2026. Rank says Claude Opus 5 is ahead. Price, access, and your workload can each overturn that. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty.

Share or export
Share on XLinkedInSocial cardCSVJSON

Decision reading

Claude Opus 5 has the higher public score estimate, 79.08 versus 64.59, but the 90% score intervals overlap. Treat that as a lead, not a settled winner. 8 results are shared. Category rows resting on Estimated evidence or different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.

Model A
Anthropic logo
Claude Opus 5

Anthropic

79.08/100

Supported · Public rank #5

90% interval 76.0–82.2

Model B
Google logo
Gemini 4 Argon

Google

64.59/100

Estimated · Public rank #32

90% interval 53.1–76.1

Shared results
8
Claude Opus 5 only
69
Gemini 4 Argon only
9
Like-for-like categories
2 / 8
Supported: Claude Opus 5 · 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.

  • Coding work

    Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks

    Claude Opus 5

    Claude Opus 5 leads on the public coding lane, 72.3 to 68.4, with Supported evidence for both models, although the 90% intervals overlap.

    Confidence: limited

  • 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-rates

  • Cache-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. Costs use the listed standard API rates.

    Confidence: listed-rates
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-rates

  • Agentic 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: limited

  • Long 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.

72.3Claude Opus 568.4Gemini 4 Argon

Like-for-like · BenchAlign v5.7

Claude Opus 5 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.

Open the coding leaderboardShortlist models for this job
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.

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.

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 5
72.3
Supported · #6/144
Gemini 4 Argon
68.4
Supported · #8/144
Basis
BenchAlign v5.7 lane · 18 vs 4 public rows
Reading
Claude Opus 5 leads · intervals overlap

Knowledge

Like-for-like
Claude Opus 5
80.9
Supported · #5/170
Gemini 4 Argon
72.9
Supported · #11/170
Basis
BenchAlign v5.7 lane · 19 vs 1 public rows
Reading
Claude Opus 5 leads · intervals overlap

Agentic

Directional only
Claude Opus 5
77.7
Supported · #3/119
Gemini 4 Argon
63.7
Estimated · #14/119
Basis
BenchAlign v5.7 lane · 20 vs 7 public rows
Reading
Directional only

Reasoning

Not comparable
Claude Opus 5
77.3
#10/27
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 5
88.8
#2/49
Gemini 4 Argon
Not ranked
Basis
Provisional lane · 1 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multilingual

Not comparable
Claude Opus 5
Not ranked
Gemini 4 Argon
Not ranked
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Instruction following

Not comparable
Claude Opus 5
Not ranked
Gemini 4 Argon
Not ranked
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Math

Not comparable
Claude Opus 5
Not ranked
Gemini 4 Argon
Not ranked
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
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 5
$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 5
$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 5
$0.45
Fits in one request
Gemini 4 Argon
$0.16
Fit state unavailable

Gemini 4 Argon has the lower modeled cost

Costs use the listed standard API rates.

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.

Reasoning profile

Claude Opus 5

Reasoning

Gemini 4 Argon

Reasoning

Weight access

Claude Opus 5

Proprietary

Gemini 4 Argon

Proprietary

License

Claude Opus 5

Proprietary

Gemini 4 Argon

Proprietary

Release date

Claude Opus 5

2026-07-24

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 5 has the higher public score estimate, 79.08 versus 64.59, but the 90% score intervals overlap.
Workload cost
Repository review: $0.325 vs $0.13. Cache-heavy agent loop: $0.45 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 5 or Gemini 4 Argon?

Claude Opus 5 has the higher public score estimate, 79.08 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 5 or Gemini 4 Argon?

Claude Opus 5 leads the public coding lane, 72.3 to 68.4, with Supported evidence for both models, although the 90% intervals overlap.

Which is better for agentic tasks, Claude Opus 5 or Gemini 4 Argon?

Claude Opus 5 scores higher for agentic tasks on the public lane, 77.7 to 63.7. 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 5 or Gemini 4 Argon?

For the stated presets, chat costs $0.0175 on Claude Opus 5 and $0.007 on Gemini 4 Argon; repository review costs $0.325 and $0.13; the cache-heavy agent loop costs $0.45 and $0.16. Costs use the listed standard API rates.

Which has the larger context window, Claude Opus 5 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 evidence86 rows

Agentic

  • Terminal-Bench 3.0

    Claude Opus 542.7%
    Source
    Gemini 4 Argon—

    Not directly comparable

  • BrowseComp

    Claude Opus 590.8%
    Source
    Gemini 4 Argon—

    Not directly comparable

  • HLE w/ tools

    Claude Opus 564.7%
    Source
    Gemini 4 Argon—

    Not directly comparable

  • DeepSearchQA

    Claude Opus 595.0%
    Source
    Gemini 4 Argon—

    Not directly comparable

  • DRACO

    Claude Opus 588.6%
    Source
    Gemini 4 Argon—

    Not directly comparable

  • BrowseComp (10-agent, prerelease)

    Claude Opus 593.6%
    Source
    Gemini 4 Argon—

    Not directly comparable

  • OSWorld 2.0

    Claude Opus 570.6%
    Source
    Gemini 4 Argon69.2%
    Source

    Claude Opus 5 leads this result

  • MCP Atlas

    Claude Opus 585.8%
    Source
    Gemini 4 Argon—

    Not directly comparable

  • MCP-Atlas claim coverage

    Claude Opus 589.1%
    Source
    Gemini 4 Argon—

    Not directly comparable

  • LAB all-pass (Anthropic harness)

    Claude Opus 523.58%
    Source
    Gemini 4 Argon—

    Not directly comparable

  • LAB criterion-pass (Anthropic harness)

    Claude Opus 593.74%
    Source
    Gemini 4 Argon—

    Not directly comparable

  • LAB all-pass (Harvey held-out)

    Claude Opus 511.7%
    Source
    Gemini 4 Argon—

    Not directly comparable

  • LAB criterion-pass (Harvey held-out)

    Claude Opus 594.1%
    Source
    Gemini 4 Argon—

    Not directly comparable

  • Toolathlon-Verified

    Claude Opus 580.6%
    Source
    Gemini 4 Argon—

    Not directly comparable

  • Toolathlon Verified Pass@3

    Claude Opus 587.0%
    Source
    Gemini 4 Argon—

    Not directly comparable

  • Toolathlon Verified Pass³

    Claude Opus 573.1%
    Source
    Gemini 4 Argon—

    Not directly comparable

  • Toolathlon Verified avg. turns

    Claude Opus 523.5 turns
    Source
    Gemini 4 Argon—

    Not directly comparable

  • AutomationBench

    Claude Opus 526.0%
    Source
    Gemini 4 Argon51.3%
    Source

    Gemini 4 Argon leads this result

  • Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals)

    Claude Opus 584.6%
    Source
    Gemini 4 Argon—

    Not directly comparable

  • ApprenticeBench

    Claude Opus 536%
    Source
    Gemini 4 Argon—

    Not directly comparable

  • Finance Agent v2

    Claude Opus 5—
    Gemini 4 Argon65.4%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • Terminal-Bench 4.0

    Claude Opus 5—
    Gemini 4 Argon57.40%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • Agents' Last Exam

    Claude Opus 5—
    Gemini 4 Argon39.5%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • CWE-bench v1

    Claude Opus 5—
    Gemini 4 Argon68.0%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • Terminal-Bench-Science 0.1 (6x verifier timeout)

    Claude Opus 5—
    Gemini 4 Argon57.6%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Coding

  • Bug Hunt Bench

    Claude Opus 527 fixes
    Source
    Gemini 4 Argon—

    Not directly comparable

  • SWE-bench Verified

    Claude Opus 596%
    Source
    Gemini 4 Argon—

    Not directly comparable

  • SWE-bench Pro

    Claude Opus 579.2%
    Source
    Gemini 4 Argon—

    Not directly comparable

  • SWE Multilingual

    Claude Opus 589.5%
    Source
    Gemini 4 Argon—

    Not directly comparable

  • SWE Multimodal

    Claude Opus 559.4%
    Source
    Gemini 4 Argon—

    Not directly comparable

  • DeepSWE

    Claude Opus 568.8%
    Source
    Gemini 4 Argon77.9%
    Source

    Gemini 4 Argon leads this result

  • FrontierCode 1.1 Main

    Claude Opus 553.4%
    Source
    Gemini 4 Argon—

    Not directly comparable

  • FrontierCode 1.1 Extended

    Claude Opus 563.6%
    Source
    Gemini 4 Argon—

    Not directly comparable

  • FrontierSWE v2

    Shared source
    Claude Opus 552.0%
    Gemini 4 Argon55.1%

    Gemini 4 Argon leads this result

  • ProgramBench (episode 1)

    Claude Opus 583.0%
    Source
    Gemini 4 Argon—

    Not directly comparable

  • ProgramBench

    Claude Opus 593.0%
    Source
    Gemini 4 Argon—

    Not directly comparable

  • cursorBench32

    Claude Opus 570.0%
    Source
    Gemini 4 Argon—

    Not directly comparable

  • VulcanBench v3

    Claude Opus 587.0%
    Source
    Gemini 4 Argon—

    Not directly comparable

  • VulcanBench CII v1

    Claude Opus 596.4%
    Source
    Gemini 4 Argon—

    Not directly comparable

  • LiveCodeBench (Vals)

    Claude Opus 589.0%
    Source
    Gemini 4 Argon—

    Not directly comparable

  • SWE-bench (Vals)

    Claude Opus 597.0%
    Source
    Gemini 4 Argon—

    Not directly comparable

  • cursorBench40

    Claude Opus 546.6%
    Source
    Gemini 4 Argon—

    Not directly comparable

  • PostTrainBench v1.1

    Claude Opus 535.0%
    Source
    Gemini 4 Argon45.3%
    Source

    Gemini 4 Argon leads this result

  • Vibe Code Bench

    Claude Opus 5—
    Gemini 4 Argon91.90%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Reasoning

  • ARC-AGI-1

    Claude Opus 597.50%
    Source
    Gemini 4 Argon—

    Not directly comparable

  • ARC-AGI-2

    Claude Opus 590.4%
    Source
    Gemini 4 Argon—

    Not directly comparable

  • ARC-AGI-3

    Claude Opus 530.2%
    Source
    Gemini 4 Argon—

    Not directly comparable

  • Graphwalks BFS 128K

    Claude Opus 5—
    Gemini 4 Argon99.7%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • GraphWalks BFS 256K–1M

    Claude Opus 5—
    Gemini 4 Argon84.2%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Multimodal

  • Chartography (no tools)

    Claude Opus 529.6%
    Source
    Gemini 4 Argon71.6%
    Source

    Gemini 4 Argon leads this result

  • Chartography (tools)

    Claude Opus 583.0%
    Source
    Gemini 4 Argon—

    Not directly comparable

  • BenchCAD Vision2Code (no tools)

    Claude Opus 50.366
    Source
    Gemini 4 Argon—

    Not directly comparable

  • BenchCAD Vision2Code (tools)

    Claude Opus 50.821
    Source
    Gemini 4 Argon—

    Not directly comparable

  • GDP.pdf (no tools)

    Claude Opus 583.4%
    Source
    Gemini 4 Argon—

    Not directly comparable

  • GDP.pdf (tools)

    Claude Opus 585.5%
    Source
    Gemini 4 Argon—

    Not directly comparable

  • OfficeQA

    Claude Opus 578.1%
    Source
    Gemini 4 Argon—

    Not directly comparable

  • OfficeQA Pro

    Claude Opus 566.9%
    Source
    Gemini 4 Argon—

    Not directly comparable

  • LVBench

    Claude Opus 5—
    Gemini 4 Argon91.7%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Knowledge

  • HLE

    Claude Opus 564.7%
    Source
    Gemini 4 Argon—

    Not directly comparable

  • HLE w/o tools

    Claude Opus 556.3%
    Source
    Gemini 4 Argon—

    Not directly comparable

  • HLE-Verified

    Claude Opus 554.4%
    Source
    Gemini 4 Argon—

    Not directly comparable

  • LABBench2

    Claude Opus 584.2%
    Source
    Gemini 4 Argon88.8%
    Source

    Gemini 4 Argon leads this result

  • HealthBench (raw)

    Claude Opus 567.1%
    Source
    Gemini 4 Argon—

    Not directly comparable

  • HealthBench (length-adjusted)

    Claude Opus 557.8%
    Source
    Gemini 4 Argon—

    Not directly comparable

  • HealthBench Professional

    Claude Opus 559.8%
    Source
    Gemini 4 Argon—

    Not directly comparable

  • HealthBench Professional (raw)

    Claude Opus 573.4%
    Source
    Gemini 4 Argon—

    Not directly comparable

  • BioMysteryBench (human-solvable)

    Claude Opus 590.1%
    Source
    Gemini 4 Argon—

    Not directly comparable

  • BioMysteryBench (human-difficult)

    Claude Opus 549.4%
    Source
    Gemini 4 Argon—

    Not directly comparable

  • SpatialBench Verified

    Claude Opus 572.5%
    Source
    Gemini 4 Argon—

    Not directly comparable

  • SingleCellBench

    Claude Opus 560.6%
    Source
    Gemini 4 Argon—

    Not directly comparable

  • ProteinGym Hard

    Claude Opus 547.7%
    Source
    Gemini 4 Argon—

    Not directly comparable

  • Protein Design

    Claude Opus 542.5%
    Source
    Gemini 4 Argon—

    Not directly comparable

  • Organic chemistry V2

    Claude Opus 561.6%
    Source
    Gemini 4 Argon—

    Not directly comparable

  • Protocols (troubleshooting)

    Claude Opus 561.1%
    Source
    Gemini 4 Argon—

    Not directly comparable

  • Protocols (understanding)

    Claude Opus 578.4%
    Source
    Gemini 4 Argon—

    Not directly comparable

  • GPQA Diamond (Vals)

    Claude Opus 593.4%
    Source
    Gemini 4 Argon—

    Not directly comparable

  • MMLU-Pro (Vals)

    Claude Opus 591.6%
    Source
    Gemini 4 Argon—

    Not directly comparable

Multilingual

  • GMMLU

    Claude Opus 592.5%
    Source
    Gemini 4 Argon—

    Not directly comparable

  • MILU

    Claude Opus 592.1%
    Source
    Gemini 4 Argon—

    Not directly comparable

  • INCLUDE

    Claude Opus 589.8%
    Source
    Gemini 4 Argon—

    Not directly comparable

Instruction following

  • Gray Swan IPI (15 attempts)

    Shared source
    Claude Opus 54.6%
    Gemini 4 Argon0.7%

    Gemini 4 Argon leads this result

Math

  • IMO 2026

    Claude Opus 542/42
    Source
    Gemini 4 Argon—

    Not directly comparable

  • RiemannBench (no tools)

    Claude Opus 560.0%
    Source
    Gemini 4 Argon—

    Not directly comparable

  • RiemannBench (tools)

    Claude Opus 579.0%
    Source
    Gemini 4 Argon—

    Not directly comparable

  • ArXivMath Jun. 2026 (no tools)

    Claude Opus 590.8%
    Source
    Gemini 4 Argon—

    Not directly comparable

  • ArXivMath Jun. 2026 (tools)

    Claude Opus 591.3%
    Source
    Gemini 4 Argon—

    Not directly comparable

86 public results · 8 shared

Related comparisons

Compare API pricingRead the methodologyOpen the model selector

Watch Claude Opus 5 vs Gemini 4 Argon

One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.

Read a sample issue

Join 2,000+ readers.

Last updated September 30, 2026