Chat turn cost
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
Hy4
Hy4 has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Confidence: listed-rates
Gemini 4 Carbon vs Hy4
Updated November 4, 2026. We do not rank this pair: at least one has no public score. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty.
Share or export
Decision reading
At least one model is not scored in the current public ranking lane, so the page does not name an overall quality winner. 1 results are shared. Category rows resting on Estimated evidence or different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.
- Shared results
- 1
- Gemini 4 Carbon only
- 8
- Hy4 only
- 14
- Like-for-like categories
- 0 / 8
Estimated: Gemini 4 Carbon. 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.
Cache-heavy agent loop cost
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
Hy4
Hy4 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
Hy4
Hy4 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
Hy4 is not ranked on the public lane for coding, so no winner is named for coding.
Confidence: limitedAgentic work
Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion
Not enough matched evidence
Gemini 4 Carbon and Hy4 are not ranked on the public lane for agentic, so no winner is named for agentic.
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.
81.1Gemini 4 Carbon—Hy4
Not comparable · BenchAlign v5.8
The coding row is not comparable on the public lane: at least one model is not measured or not ranked there.
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.
8 Gemini 4 Carbon only
1 Shared
14 Hy4 only
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.
AutomationBenchAgentic
Normalized gap 2.3Gemini 4 Carbon:53.9%Hy4:56.2%
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 v5.8 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.
Agentic
Not comparable- Gemini 4 Carbon
- Not ranked
- Hy4
- Not ranked
- Basis
- BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 4 vs 7 public rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Coding
Not comparable- Gemini 4 Carbon
- 81.1
- Supported · #3/156
- Hy4
- Not ranked
- Basis
- BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 1 vs 5 public rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Reasoning
Not comparable- Gemini 4 Carbon
- 79.5
- Unranked · 2 rankable rows
- Hy4
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multimodal
Not comparable- Gemini 4 Carbon
- Not ranked
- Hy4
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Knowledge
Not comparable- Gemini 4 Carbon
- 88.2
- Supported · #2/179
- Hy4
- Not ranked
- Basis
- BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 0 vs 1 public rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multilingual
Not comparable- Gemini 4 Carbon
- Not ranked
- Hy4
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Instruction following
Not comparable- Gemini 4 Carbon
- Not ranked
- Hy4
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Math
Not comparable- Gemini 4 Carbon
- Not ranked
- Hy4
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
| Category | Gemini 4 Carbon | Hy4 | Basis | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agentic | Not ranked | Not ranked | Not comparableBenchAlign v5.8 lane · 4 vs 7 public rows | Not comparable |
| Coding | 81.1Supported · #3/156 | Not ranked | Not comparableBenchAlign v5.8 lane · 1 vs 5 public rows | Not comparable |
| Reasoning | 79.5Unranked · 2 rankable rows | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Multimodal | Not ranked | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Knowledge | 88.2Supported · #2/179 | Not ranked | Not comparableBenchAlign v5.8 lane · 0 vs 1 public 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 | Not ranked | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 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.
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
- Gemini 4 Carbon
- $0.007
- Fit state unavailable
- Hy4
- $0.00208
- Fits in one request
Hy4 has the lower modeled cost
Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Repository review
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
- Gemini 4 Carbon
- $0.13
- Fit state unavailable
- Hy4
- $0.0492
- Fits in one request
Hy4 has the lower modeled cost
Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Cache-heavy agent loop
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
- Gemini 4 Carbon
- $0.16
- Fit state unavailable
- Hy4
- $0.05009
- Fits in one request
Hy4 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.
SpecificationGemini 4 CarbonHy4
Context window
Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.
Gemini 4 Carbon
Not sourced
Google Gemini 4 Carbon launchAPI model ID
Gemini 4 Carbon
Not sourced
Hy4
tencent/hy4
Tencent Cloud TokenHub model pricingCached-input rate
A missing cached-input rate falls back to the listed input rate only in the stated workload estimate.
Gemini 4 Carbon
$0.1 per 1M cached input tokens
Google Gemini 4 Carbon launch postHy4
$0.042 per 1M cached input tokens
Tencent Cloud TokenHub model pricingDocumented inputs
Gemini 4 Carbon
Not sourced
Hy4
Not sourced
Documented outputs
Gemini 4 Carbon
Not sourced
Hy4
Not sourced
Provider availability
Gemini 4 Carbon
Limited Access · Fairwind Program
Google Gemini 4 Carbon launchHy4
Not sourced
Reasoning profile
Gemini 4 Carbon
Reasoning
Hy4
Reasoning
Weight access
Gemini 4 Carbon
Proprietary
Hy4
Pending
License
Gemini 4 Carbon
Proprietary
Hy4
Pending
Release date
Gemini 4 Carbon
2026-10-28
Hy4
2026-11-04
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
- At least one model is not scored in the current public ranking lane, so the page does not name an overall quality winner.
- Workload cost
- Repository review: $0.13 vs $0.0492. Cache-heavy agent loop: $0.16 vs $0.05009.
- 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, Gemini 4 Carbon or Hy4?
At least one model is not scored in the current public ranking lane, so the page does not name an overall quality winner. The page therefore keeps the decision tied to the specific documented workload.
Which is better for coding, Gemini 4 Carbon or Hy4?
Hy4 is not ranked on the public lane for coding, so no winner is named for coding.
Which is better for agentic tasks, Gemini 4 Carbon or Hy4?
Gemini 4 Carbon and Hy4 are not ranked on the public lane for agentic tasks, so no winner is named for agentic tasks.
Which costs less, Gemini 4 Carbon or Hy4?
For the stated presets, chat costs $0.007 on Gemini 4 Carbon and $0.00209 on Hy4; repository review costs $0.13 and $0.0492; the cache-heavy agent loop costs $0.16 and $0.05009. Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Which has the larger context window, Gemini 4 Carbon or Hy4?
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 evidence23 rows
Agentic
AutomationBench
Gemini 4 Carbon53.9%SourceHy456.2%SourceHy4 leads this result
OSWorld 2.1 Offline
Gemini 4 Carbon81.5%SourceHy4—Not directly comparable
CWE-bench v1
Gemini 4 Carbon71.0%SourceHy4—Not directly comparable
ExploitGym
Gemini 4 Carbon53.5%SourceHy4—Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 4.0
Gemini 4 Carbon—Hy444.40%SourceNot directly comparable
Terminal-Bench-Science 0.1
Gemini 4 Carbon—Hy419.8%SourceNot directly comparable
HLE w/ tools
Gemini 4 Carbon—Hy459.1%SourceNot directly comparable
Agents' Last Exam
Gemini 4 Carbon—Hy441.0%SourceNot directly comparable
APEX-Agents
Gemini 4 Carbon—Hy475.2%SourceNot directly comparable
OSWorld 2.1
Gemini 4 Carbon—Hy478.9%SourceNot directly comparable
Coding
FrontierSWE v2
Gemini 4 Carbon61.2%SourceHy4—Not directly comparable
DeepSWE
Gemini 4 Carbon—Hy474.9%SourceNot directly comparable
sweMarathon
Gemini 4 Carbon—Hy443.8%SourceNot directly comparable
ProgramBench
Gemini 4 Carbon—Hy430.0%SourceNot directly comparable
FrontierCode 2.0
Gemini 4 Carbon—Hy431.0%SourceNot directly comparable
PostTrainBench v1.2
Gemini 4 Carbon—Hy435.2%SourceNot directly comparable
Reasoning
GraphWalks BFS 256K–1M
Gemini 4 Carbon96.2%SourceHy4—Not directly comparable
Multimodal
Knowledge
HLE
Gemini 4 Carbon—Hy459.1%SourceNot directly comparable
Instruction following
Gray Swan IPI (15 attempts)
Gemini 4 Carbon0.0%SourceHy4—Not directly comparable
23 public results · 1 shared
Watch Gemini 4 Carbon vs Hy4
One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.
Read a sample issueJoin 6,100+ subscribers.
Last updated November 4, 2026