Long documents
Prompts that approach the documented context limit
Gemini 4 Argon
Gemini 4 Argon has the larger documented context window.
Confidence: documented
Command A+ vs Gemini 4 Argon
Updated November 13, 2026. Rank says Gemini 4 Argon is ahead. Price, access, and your workload can each overturn that. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty.
Share or export
Decision reading
Gemini 4 Argon has the higher public point estimate, 79.03 versus 28.62. Their conditional score ranges do not overlap. These ranges do not establish rank confidence. 1 results are shared. Category rows resting on Estimated evidence or different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.
- API price per 1M tokens
Command A+: $2.50 input / $10 output
Gemini 4 Argon: $2 input / $10 output
- Context window
Command A+: 128K
Gemini 4 Argon: 1M
- Released
Command A+: May 20, 2026
Gemini 4 Argon: September 30, 2026
- Shared results
- 1
- Command A+ only
- 4
- Gemini 4 Argon only
- 38
- Like-for-like categories
- 0 / 8
Estimated: Command A+ · Supported: Gemini 4 Argon. Conditional ranges do not establish rank confidence.How 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-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-ratesCoding work
Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks
Not enough matched evidence
Command A+ is scored on Estimated evidence for coding, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like.
Confidence: limitedAgentic work
Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion
Not enough matched evidence
Command A+ is scored on Estimated evidence for agentic, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like.
Confidence: limitedCache-heavy agent loop cost
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
Not enough matched evidence
The page does not recommend a cost winner because at least one model cannot fit the stated workload in one request. Command A+ does not fit this workload in one request. Command A+ has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.
Confidence: rate-fallback
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.
15.7Command A+71.8Gemini 4 Argon
Directional only · BenchAlign v5.8
Gemini 4 Argon has the higher coding point estimate. Conditional score ranges do not establish rank confidence.
Coding scores combine specific tasks and setups. Match the editor, harness, and effort to your workflow.
Same basis rules as the category table below
Or describe your own job
The LLM Selector reads what you need a model for and returns a shortlist, ranked in the same order the job pages publish.
Describe the task and constraints. This selector recommends models; it cannot carry out the task or access your files and accounts.
We keep what you type here, drafts included, for 180 days, and after that only the job and requirements read from it. Nothing is tied to your IP address or account. Leave out names and other personal details. Privacy
What is actually comparable
Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results present for only one model describe coverage, not superiority.
4 Command A+ only
1 Shared
38 Gemini 4 Argon only
4 categories rest 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.
A shared-evidence shape is not available.
BenchLM does not draw a radar or infer missing axes when the matched evidence is too sparse.
Category results, on a stated basis
Each row shows the public-lane category score for both models: the BenchAlign v5.8 lane for agentic, coding, reasoning, multimodal, 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.
Agentic
Directional only- Command A+
- 13.6
- Estimated · #130/135
- Gemini 4 Argon
- 74.9
- Supported · #6/135
- Basis
- BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 2 vs 13 public rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Coding
Directional only- Command A+
- 15.7
- Estimated · #149/162
- Gemini 4 Argon
- 71.8
- Supported · #9/162
- Basis
- BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 0 vs 9 public rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Reasoning
Directional only- Command A+
- 20.7
- Estimated · #149/160
- Gemini 4 Argon
- 76.5
- Supported · #7/160
- Basis
- BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 0 vs 7 public rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Knowledge
Directional only- Command A+
- 26.7
- Estimated · #164/180
- Gemini 4 Argon
- 79.2
- Supported · #8/180
- Basis
- BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 0 vs 2 public rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Multimodal
Not comparable- Command A+
- 33.3
- Estimated · #66/67
- Gemini 4 Argon
- Not ranked
- Basis
- BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 3 vs 5 public rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multilingual
Not comparable- Command A+
- Not ranked
- Gemini 4 Argon
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Instruction following
Not comparable- Command A+
- 90.7
- #26/157
- Gemini 4 Argon
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Math
Not comparable- Command A+
- Not ranked
- Gemini 4 Argon
- 87.4
- Unranked · 2 rankable rows
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 2 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
| Category | Command A+ | Gemini 4 Argon | Basis | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agentic | 13.6Estimated · #130/135 | 74.9Supported · #6/135 | Directional onlyBenchAlign v5.8 lane · 2 vs 13 public rows | Directional only |
| Coding | 15.7Estimated · #149/162 | 71.8Supported · #9/162 | Directional onlyBenchAlign v5.8 lane · 0 vs 9 public rows | Directional only |
| Reasoning | 20.7Estimated · #149/160 | 76.5Supported · #7/160 | Directional onlyBenchAlign v5.8 lane · 0 vs 7 public rows | Directional only |
| Knowledge | 26.7Estimated · #164/180 | 79.2Supported · #8/180 | Directional onlyBenchAlign v5.8 lane · 0 vs 2 public rows | Directional only |
| Multimodal | 33.3Estimated · #66/67 | Not ranked | Not comparableBenchAlign v5.8 lane · 3 vs 5 public rows | Not comparable |
| Multilingual | Not ranked | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Instruction following | 90.7#26/157 | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Math | Not ranked | 87.4Unranked · 2 rankable rows | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 2 weighted rows | Not comparable |
Ranks count the models scored in each category’s lane, so the agentic, coding, reasoning, multimodal, and knowledge denominators (BenchAlign v5.8) 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
- Command A+
- $0.0075
- Fits in one request
- Gemini 4 Argon
- $0.007
- Fits in one request
Gemini 4 Argon has the lower modeled cost
Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Repository review
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
- Command A+
- $0.155
- Fits in one request
- Gemini 4 Argon
- $0.13
- Fits in one request
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
- Command A+
- $0.65
- Does not fit in one request
- Cached input priced at the published list-input rate
- Gemini 4 Argon
- $0.16
- Fits in one request
Command A+ does not fit this workload in one request. Command A+ has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.
Your workload
Enter a month of tokens to price it at both models’ listed API rates.
- Command A+
- $45.00
- per month
- Gemini 4 Argon
- $40.00
- per month
Standard listed rates, no batch or volume discounts.
Cached input falls back to the list input rate only where a cached rate is unpublished
Price against score, among all priced models
Overall score against output price per 1M tokens, one model per family. Pricing as of November 12, 2026.
Command A+Gemini 4 Argon
- 63 models score at least as high as Command A+ for the same price or less. The nearest is Gemini 4 Carbon (score 89.2, also $10.00 per 1M output tokens).
- 2 models at the same price score higher than Gemini 4 Argon. The nearest is Gemini 4 Carbon (score 89.2, also $10.00 per 1M output tokens).
Gray dots are the other priced models. The dark step line is the efficiency frontier: for a model under it, another model costs no more and scores at least as high.
See Command A+ on the full price vs performance chartSpecification differences
Sourced differences are shown directly. Missing facts stay explicit instead of being inferred from a model name or family.
SpecificationCommand A+Gemini 4 Argon
Context window
Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.
Command A+
128K
Gemini 4 Argon
API model ID
Command A+
Not sourced
Gemini 4 Argon
gemini-4-argon
Google Gemini 4 Argon model documentationCached-input rate
A missing cached-input rate falls back to the listed input rate only in the stated workload estimate.
Command A+
Not published
Gemini 4 Argon
$0.1 per 1M cached input tokens
Google Gemini API pricingDocumented inputs
Command A+
text, image
command-a-plus-05-2026-bf16 model cardGemini 4 Argon
text, image, video, audio, pdf
Google Gemini 4 Argon model documentationDocumented outputs
Command A+
Gemini 4 Argon
Provider availability
Command A+
Not sourced
Gemini 4 Argon
Generally Available · Gemini API, Google AI Studio
Google Gemini 4 Argon model documentationReasoning profile
Command A+
Reasoning
Gemini 4 Argon
Reasoning
Weight access
Command A+
Open Weight
Gemini 4 Argon
Proprietary
License
Command A+
Open Weight
Gemini 4 Argon
Proprietary
Release date
Command A+
2026-05-20
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
- Gemini 4 Argon has the higher public point estimate, 79.03 versus 28.62. Their conditional score ranges do not overlap. These ranges do not establish rank confidence.
- Workload cost
- Repository review: $0.155 vs $0.13. Cache-heavy agent loop: $0.65 vs $0.16.
- Context tradeoff
- Gemini 4 Argon has the larger documented window (1M).
Run the same representative tasks against both endpoints before changing production traffic.
Questions
Which is better, Command A+ or Gemini 4 Argon?
Gemini 4 Argon has the higher public point estimate, 79.03 versus 28.62. Their conditional score ranges do not overlap. These ranges do not establish rank confidence. The page therefore keeps the decision tied to the specific documented workload.
Which is better for coding, Command A+ or Gemini 4 Argon?
Gemini 4 Argon scores higher for coding on the public lane, 71.8 to 15.7. Command A+ is scored on Estimated evidence for coding, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like. BenchLM does not name a winner for coding from a directional reading; read the shared benchmark rows directly and test the models on the same task set.
Which is better for agentic tasks, Command A+ or Gemini 4 Argon?
Gemini 4 Argon scores higher for agentic tasks on the public lane, 74.9 to 13.6. Command A+ 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, Command A+ or Gemini 4 Argon?
For the stated presets, chat costs $0.0075 on Command A+ and $0.007 on Gemini 4 Argon; repository review costs $0.155 and $0.13; the cache-heavy agent loop costs $0.65 and $0.16. Command A+ does not fit this workload in one request. Command A+ has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.
Which has the larger context window, Command A+ or Gemini 4 Argon?
Gemini 4 Argon has the larger documented context window: 1M, compared with 128K.
Self-host vs API cost
Estimates at 50,000 req/day · 1000 tokens/req average.
Command A+
API / mo$9,375
Self-host / mo$6,990
Break-even37M/day
Gemini 4 Argon
API / mo$9,000
Self-host / moNot listed
Break-even—
Proprietary model — self-hosting not applicable.
Benchmark evidence
The full public result ledger is available for audit without forcing a wide desktop table onto a phone.
Browse raw public benchmark evidence43 rows
Agentic
τ²-bench results
Command A+85%SourceGemini 4 Argon—Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals)
Command A+17.6%SourceGemini 4 Argon57.7%SourceGemini 4 Argon leads this result
AutomationBench
Command A+—Gemini 4 Argon51.3%SourceNot directly comparable
Finance Agent v2
Command A+—Gemini 4 Argon65.4%SourceNot directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 4.0
Command A+—Gemini 4 Argon57.40%SourceNot directly comparable
Agents' Last Exam
Command A+—Gemini 4 Argon39.5%SourceNot directly comparable
OSWorld 2.0
Command A+—Gemini 4 Argon69.2%SourceNot directly comparable
CWE-bench v1
Command A+—Gemini 4 Argon68.0%SourceNot directly comparable
Terminal-Bench-Science 0.1 (6x verifier timeout)
Command A+—Gemini 4 Argon57.6%SourceNot directly comparable
MazeBench
Command A+—Gemini 4 Argon12%SourceNot directly comparable
OSWorld 2.1 Offline
Command A+—Gemini 4 Argon74.7%SourceNot directly comparable
ExploitGym
Command A+—Gemini 4 Argon39.5%SourceNot directly comparable
RoboDojo Sim
Command A+—Gemini 4 Argon34.2%SourceNot directly comparable
CWE-bench
Command A+—Gemini 4 Argon65.0%SourceNot directly comparable
Coding
ScarfBench
Command A+—Gemini 4 Argon75.2%SourceNot directly comparable
DeepSWE
Command A+—Gemini 4 Argon77.9%SourceNot directly comparable
FrontierSWE v2
Command A+—Gemini 4 Argon55.0%SourceNot directly comparable
Vibe Code Bench
Command A+—Gemini 4 Argon91.90%SourceNot directly comparable
PostTrainBench v1.1
Command A+—Gemini 4 Argon45.3%SourceNot directly comparable
Bug Hunt Bench
Command A+—Gemini 4 Argon40.7 fixesSourceNot directly comparable
FrontierCode 2.0
Command A+—Gemini 4 Argon26.3%SourceNot directly comparable
CursorBench 4.0
Command A+—Gemini 4 Argon52.9%SourceNot directly comparable
PostTrainBench
Command A+—Gemini 4 Argon40.4%SourceNot directly comparable
Reasoning
STEMBench
Command A+—Gemini 4 Argon2.44SourceNot directly comparable
Graphwalks BFS 128K
Command A+—Gemini 4 Argon99.7%SourceNot directly comparable
GraphWalks BFS 256K–1M
Command A+—Gemini 4 Argon84.2%SourceNot directly comparable
ARC-AGI-1
Command A+—Gemini 4 Argon98.50%SourceNot directly comparable
ARC-AGI-2
Command A+—Gemini 4 Argon91.3%SourceNot directly comparable
ARC-AGI-3
Command A+—Gemini 4 Argon46.3%SourceNot directly comparable
ARC-AGI-3 Provider Adapter
Command A+—Gemini 4 Argon97.30%SourceNot directly comparable
Multimodal
MMMU
Command A+75.1%SourceGemini 4 Argon—Not directly comparable
MMMU-Pro
Command A+63%SourceGemini 4 Argon—Not directly comparable
CharXiv
Command A+52.7%SourceGemini 4 Argon—Not directly comparable
ParseBench-2
Command A+—Gemini 4 Argon84.20%SourceNot directly comparable
ExtractBench Pro
Command A+—Gemini 4 Argon30%SourceNot directly comparable
Chartography (no tools)
Command A+—Gemini 4 Argon71.6%SourceNot directly comparable
LVBench
Command A+—Gemini 4 Argon91.7%SourceNot directly comparable
Blueprint-Bench 2
Command A+—Gemini 4 Argon54.4%SourceNot directly comparable
Knowledge
Instruction following
Gray Swan IPI (15 attempts)
Command A+—Gemini 4 Argon0.7%SourceNot directly comparable
Math
43 public results · 1 shared
Watch Command A+ vs Gemini 4 Argon
One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.
Read a sample issueJoin 7,000+ subscribers.
Last updated November 13, 2026