Updated October 15, 2026. Rank says Gemini 4 Argon 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
The public evidence has no benchmark result shared by both models, so it does not support a quality verdict. Use the documented cost, context, and runtime rows instead. 0 results are shared. Category rows resting on Estimated evidence or different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.
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.
Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks
Gemini 4 Argon
Gemini 4 Argon has the higher public coding point estimate, 72.3 to 56.1, with Supported evidence for both models. The conditional ranges do not establish rank confidence.
Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion
Not enough matched evidence
Gemini 4 Argon and Muse Spark Open are scored on Estimated evidence for agentic, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like.
Prompts that approach the documented context limit
No clear pick
The documented context windows are equal.
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
Not enough matched evidence
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
Not enough matched evidence
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
Not enough matched evidence
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
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.
Like-for-like · 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.
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.
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.
Each row shows the public-lane category score for both models: the BenchAlign v5.8 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.
| Category | Gemini 4 Argon | Muse Spark Open | Basis | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | 72.3Supported · #6/150 | 56.1Supported · #29/150 | Like-for-likeBenchAlign v5.8 lane · 4 vs 0 public rows | Gemini 4 Argon leads · intervals overlap |
| Knowledge | 80.2Supported · #9/184 | 64.6Supported · #38/184 | Like-for-likeBenchAlign v5.8 lane · 1 vs 0 public rows | Gemini 4 Argon leads · intervals overlap |
| Agentic | 77.3Estimated · #4/127 | 60.2Estimated · #27/127 | Directional onlyBenchAlign v5.8 lane · 8 vs 4 public rows | Directional only |
| Reasoning | 80.6Unranked · 3 rankable rows | 79.6Unranked · 2 rankable rows | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Multimodal | Not ranked | 83.6Unranked · 4 rankable rows | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Multilingual | Not ranked | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Instruction following | Not ranked | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Math | 92.8Unranked · 2 rankable rows | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 2 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
Ranks count the models scored in each category’s lane, so the agentic, coding, and knowledge denominators (BenchAlign v5.8) 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.
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.
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
Muse Spark Open has no comparable published API token rate.
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
Muse Spark Open has no comparable published API token rate.
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
Muse Spark Open has no comparable published API token rate.
Sourced differences are shown directly. Missing facts stay explicit instead of being inferred from a model name or family.
Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.
Gemini 4 Argon
Muse Spark Open
Gemini 4 Argon
gemini-4-argon
Google Gemini 4 Argon model documentationMuse Spark Open
Not sourced
A missing cached-input rate falls back to the listed input rate only in the stated workload estimate.
Gemini 4 Argon
$0.1 per 1M cached input tokens
Google Gemini API pricingMuse Spark Open
No comparable hosted API rate
Meta AI Research blogGemini 4 Argon
text, image, video, audio, pdf
Google Gemini 4 Argon model documentationMuse Spark Open
text, image, video, audio
Meta Muse Spark Open model cardGemini 4 Argon
Muse Spark Open
Gemini 4 Argon
Generally Available · Gemini API, Google AI Studio
Google Gemini 4 Argon model documentationMuse Spark Open
Open Weights · Hugging Face, Amazon SageMaker AI, Google Cloud Model Garden, Microsoft Foundry Models, self-hosted inference
Meta AI Research: Muse Spark OpenGemini 4 Argon
Reasoning
Muse Spark Open
Reasoning
Gemini 4 Argon
Proprietary
Muse Spark Open
Open Weight
Gemini 4 Argon
Proprietary
Muse Spark Open
Open Weight
Gemini 4 Argon
2026-09-30
Muse Spark Open
2026-10-15
The public evidence has no benchmark result shared by both models, so it does not support a quality verdict. The page therefore keeps the decision tied to the specific documented workload.
Gemini 4 Argon has the higher public coding point estimate, 72.3 to 56.1, with Supported evidence for both models. The conditional ranges do not establish rank confidence.
Gemini 4 Argon scores higher for agentic tasks on the public lane, 77.3 to 60.2. Gemini 4 Argon and Muse Spark Open are 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.
Both models do not have comparable published API token rates, so this page does not name a universal price winner.
Both models list the same context window, 1M.
The full public result ledger is available for audit without forcing a wide desktop table onto a phone.
AutomationBench
Not directly comparable
Finance Agent v2
Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 4.0
Not directly comparable
Agents' Last Exam
Not directly comparable
OSWorld 2.0
Not directly comparable
CWE-bench v1
Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench-Science 0.1 (6x verifier timeout)
Not directly comparable
MazeBench
Not directly comparable
JobBench
Not directly comparable
MCP Atlas
Not directly comparable
HLE w/ tools
Not directly comparable
Toolathlon-Verified
Not directly comparable
DeepSWE
Not directly comparable
FrontierSWE v2
Not directly comparable
Vibe Code Bench
Not directly comparable
PostTrainBench v1.1
Not directly comparable
Chartography (no tools)
Not directly comparable
LVBench
Not directly comparable
ZeroBench
Not directly comparable
BabyVision
Not directly comparable
SimpleVQA
Not directly comparable
LABBench2
Not directly comparable
Gray Swan IPI (15 attempts)
Not directly comparable
One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.
Read a sample issueJoin 5,500+ readers.
Last updated October 15, 2026
