Skip to main content
BenchLM
Data

Data as of October 28, 2026 · How the score is built

Gemini 4 Carbon

Decision readingGemini 4 Carbon scores 88.4 out of 100 and ranks #1 of 215. This profile shows 10 source-displayable benchmark rows; its strongest eligible category is Coding at #3. API pricing is $2 input and $10 output per million tokens, with cached input at $0.1.

Released Oct 28, 2026 — see all recent releases

Decision snapshot

Each value carries a field reference instead of floating alone. Markers compare this model with the current ranked and priced catalog; they are not absolute quality thresholds.

Capability

88.4/100

field median 50.1#1 of 215 ranked models

Public

#1of 215

Verified —

Price

$2input / $10 output

input median $0.75cached $0.10 · blended $6

Speed

100tok/s

field median 92 tok/sFirst token 97.48 s

Context

Not published

field median 256,000No exact-model context limit is sourced

Strongest published evidence

Coding ranks #3. Particularly well-suited for software development and code generation tasks.

Validate before choosing

10 published rows leave some tracked benchmark slots empty.

Source-linked · 10 displayable benchmark rows

Category score record

Scores and ranks appear only where published evidence can be displayed. The table keeps the score, weight, cohort, and evidence state together.

Category scores, ranks, weighting, benchmark coverage, and evidence status
CategoryScore
AgenticRank Not rankedWeight 22%4 benchmarksVerified
80.4
CodingRank #3 of 156Percentile 99thWeight 20%1 benchmarkVerified
82.2
ReasoningRank Not rankedWeight 17%1 benchmarkVerified
79.5
MultimodalWeight 12%2 benchmarksVerified
Score pending
KnowledgeWeight 12%0 benchmarksNot measured
Not measured
MultilingualWeight 7%0 benchmarksNot measured
Not measured
Inst. FollowingWeight 5%1 benchmarkVerified
Score pending
MathWeight 5%0 benchmarksNot measured
Not measured

10 of 775 tracked benchmark slots have displayable evidence · bars run 0–100

Coverage details

How much of this is verified

Coverage is split by category so a strong number never hides a thin evidence base. Verified means the row is tied to a published source; provisional rows remain visible but separate.

  1. Agentic4/4 verified
  2. Coding1/1 verified
  3. Reasoning1/1 verified
  4. Multimodal2/2 verified
  5. KnowledgeNot measured
  6. MultilingualNot measured
  7. Inst. Following1/1 verified
  8. MathNot measured
Verified sourceProvisionalNot measured

Capability shape

Each axis shows percentile within that category’s eligible cohort. The comparison outline is the median of the six nearest public-score peers; a collapsed vertex means the category is not rank-eligible.

Gemini 4 Carbon category percentile values

  • AgenticNot eligible
  • Coding99th percentile
  • ReasoningNot eligible
  • MultimodalNot eligible
  • KnowledgeNot eligible
  • MultilingualNot eligible
  • Instruction followingNot eligible
  • MathNot eligible

The dashed outline is median of 6 nearest peers.

Eligible category ranks

  1. AgenticNot ranked
  2. Coding#3/156
  3. ReasoningNot ranked
  4. MultimodalNot ranked
  5. KnowledgeNot ranked
  6. MultilingualNot ranked
  7. Inst. FollowingNot ranked
  8. MathNot ranked
Top decileTop quartileMid-fieldNot eligible

Benchmark ledger

Coding opens by default. The marker compares each value with the best source-verified result in the catalog; provisional leaders do not set the reference. Expand the remaining categories for every published row.

Coding1 row
Coding benchmark values, best verified comparison, weight, and source status
FrontierSWE v2Score61.2%Versus best verified row

Best verified: GPT-6 Astra · 65.5%

Gap4.3 behindWeight8% ref. weight
Agentic4 rows
Agentic benchmark values, best verified comparison, weight, and source status
AutomationBenchScore53.9%Versus best verified row

Best verified: MiniMax M3.1 Flash · 62.2%

Gap8.3 behindWeight6% ref. weight
OSWorld 2.1 OfflineOSWorld 2.1 offline subset (82 tasks)Score81.5%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Claude Opus 5.5 · 87.2%

Gap5.7 behindWeightDisplay only
CWE-bench v1Score71.0%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Gemini 4 Carbon · 71.0%

GapBest verifiedWeightDisplay only
ExploitGymScore53.5%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Gemini 4 Carbon · 53.5%

GapBest verifiedWeightDisplay only
Reasoning1 row
Reasoning benchmark values, best verified comparison, weight, and source status
GraphWalks BFS 256K–1MScore96.2%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Gemini 4 Carbon · 96.2%

GapBest verifiedWeightDisplay only
Multimodal2 rows
Multimodal benchmark values, best verified comparison, weight, and source status
Chartography (no tools)Chartography without toolsScore72.5%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Gemini 4 Carbon · 72.5%

GapBest verifiedWeightDisplay only
Blueprint-Bench 2Score58.6%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Gemini 4 Carbon · 58.6%

GapBest verifiedWeightDisplay only
Inst. Following1 row
Inst. Following benchmark values, best verified comparison, weight, and source status
Gray Swan IPI (15 attempts)Gray Swan Indirect Prompt Injection, attack success at 15 attemptsScore0.0%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Gemini 4 Carbon · 0.0%

GapBest verifiedWeightDisplay only
External signals1 row
External signals benchmark values, best verified comparison, weight, and source status
SEC-Bench ProScore88.2%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Gemini 4 Carbon · 88.2%

GapBest verifiedWeightDisplay only

What it costs to get this score

Published API price against the public score. The x-axis uses a log scale; the dashed path marks models that are not beaten by a cheaper, higher-scoring option. Price uses average of published input and output rates.

Current modelExplore all models

Gemini 4 Carbon · 88.4 score · $6 blended per million tokens

The chart opens on the current model. Scroll horizontally to inspect the full price axis.

405060708090100$0.10$0.50$1$5$10$25$50$100↘ frontierGemini 4 Carbon

Horizontal: blended price per million tokens, log scale · Vertical: public score

Lineage

The sequence follows explicit supersedes links. Each score is estimated for that model; a relative can inform a sparse estimate but never sets a floor, so a newer release can score below an earlier one. Scores and prices remain blank when the corresponding public row or first-party rate is unavailable.

  1. Sep 30, 2026

    Gemini 4 Argon

    Score 82.3 · $2 / $10

  2. Oct 28, 2026 · you are here

    Gemini 4 Carbon

    Score 88.4 · $2 / $10

Spec sheet

Each documented value carries its source. Missing fields stay visible as not sourced or not published, rather than disappearing from the page.

API model ID
Not publishedGoogle Gemini 4 Carbon launch post
Context window
Not publishedGoogle Gemini 4 Carbon launch
Maximum output
Not sourced yet
Knowledge cutoff
Not sourced yet
Input modalities
Not sourced yetGoogle Gemini 4 Carbon launch
Output modalities
Not sourced yetGoogle Gemini 4 Carbon launch
Parameters
Not disclosed by the provider
Availability
Fairwind ProgramGoogle Gemini 4 Carbon launch
Cloud regions
Not tracked yet
Lifecycle
limited accessGoogle Gemini 4 Carbon launch
API capabilities
Tool calling, structured outputs, and batch support are not tracked yet
Prompt caching
Published at $0.10 per million cached input tokensGoogle Gemini 4 Carbon launch post
Self-host
Weights are not published
Rate limits
Not tracked yet

How to read this profile

The visual layer above carries the decisions. These notes preserve the model, ranking, coverage, and family context behind the numbers.

Gemini 4 Carbon ranks #1 of 215 on the public leaderboard with a score of 88.42/100. It does not yet have enough sourced coverage for a verified position.

Gemini 4 Carbon is a proprietary model. It uses an explicit reasoning mode, which can improve complex problem solving while adding latency and token use.

Google is giving Gemini 4 Carbon first to a subset of cyber defenders, then to more trusted partners through its Fairwind Program, before a wider release to developers, businesses, and consumers. Google has not yet published a Gemini API model ID, context window, or model documentation for Carbon.

Gemini 4 Carbon sits in the Gemini 4 family with Gemini 4 Argon. Its explicit predecessor is Gemini 4 Argon. 10 of 775 tracked benchmark slots currently have displayable evidence. Missing categories stay blank.

Its strongest eligible category is Coding at #3. particularly well-suited for software development and code generation tasks.

Last updated October 28, 2026. Runtime fields remain blank until a sourced snapshot exists.

Questions

How does Gemini 4 Carbon perform overall in AI benchmarks?

Gemini 4 Carbon ranks #1 out of 215 models on the public BenchAlign leaderboard, with a score of 88.42/100. Its evidence status is Estimated, and this profile shows 10 source-displayable benchmark rows. The label describes evidence depth, not a provider quality claim; inspect category rows before choosing a workload.

Is Gemini 4 Carbon good for coding and programming?

Gemini 4 Carbon ranks #3 out of 156 eligible models for coding and programming, with a public category score of 82.2/100. That places it in the current top ten for this category. Check the underlying rows before treating the aggregate as a workload guarantee.

Is Gemini 4 Carbon good for reasoning and logic?

Gemini 4 Carbon has source-displayable benchmark coverage for reasoning and logic, but the public category table does not assign it a rank there. The individual rows remain available for inspection. A missing category position means the evidence threshold was not met; it does not convert the model's unmeasured work into a zero.

Is Gemini 4 Carbon good for agentic tool use and computer tasks?

Gemini 4 Carbon has source-displayable benchmark coverage for agentic tool use and computer tasks, but the public category table does not assign it a rank there. The individual rows remain available for inspection. A missing category position means the evidence threshold was not met; it does not convert the model's unmeasured work into a zero.

Is Gemini 4 Carbon good for multimodal and grounded tasks?

Gemini 4 Carbon has source-displayable benchmark coverage for multimodal and grounded tasks, but the public category table does not assign it a rank there. The individual rows remain available for inspection. A missing category position means the evidence threshold was not met; it does not convert the model's unmeasured work into a zero.

Is Gemini 4 Carbon good for instruction following?

Gemini 4 Carbon has source-displayable benchmark coverage for instruction following, but the public category table does not assign it a rank there. The individual rows remain available for inspection. A missing category position means the evidence threshold was not met; it does not convert the model's unmeasured work into a zero.

Which sibling models are related to Gemini 4 Carbon?

Gemini 4 Carbon belongs to the Gemini 4 family. Related tracked variants include Gemini 4 Argon. A sibling link indicates shared lineage or a documented configuration relationship; it does not mean the variants have identical pricing, context limits, benchmark evidence, or deployment behavior. Compare before switching.

Does Gemini 4 Carbon have full benchmark coverage on BenchLM?

No. Gemini 4 Carbon currently has 23 source-displayable rows. The profile exposes published, non-generated evidence and leaves missing categories blank until an exact evaluation is available. Coverage describes how much was measured; it is not a penalty added to an individual benchmark result.

What is the context window size of Gemini 4 Carbon?

Gemini 4 Carbon's provider has not published a context-window limit for this exact model. The profile leaves the value unavailable instead of borrowing a number from an earlier family member or a third-party route. Maximum output length is tracked separately when the provider documents it.

Watch Gemini 4 Carbon in the weekly brief

Get one weekly email when material rank, price, availability, or benchmark evidence changes are worth revisiting.

Read a sample issue

Join 6,100+ subscribers.

Compare Gemini 4 Carbon with every tracked model1001 comparisons