Gemini 4 Carbon vs Claude Opus 5.5
Gemini 4 Carbon scores higher on the Models at Work leaderboard (75 vs 70 out of 100). On independent tests alone, Gemini 4 Carbon is ahead (92 vs 83). Gemini 4 Carbon is cheaper: 1,000 support replies cost about $10 at list price, against $20 on Claude Opus 5.5, which is 2 times as much. On the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index, one of the independent tests, Gemini 4 Carbon leads 60 to 59.
| Gemini 4 Carbon · Google | Claude Opus 5.5 · Anthropic | |
|---|---|---|
| Leaderboard rank | #1 | #5 |
| Score (0–100) | 75 | 70 |
| Kind of work | Hardest problems | Hardest problems |
| Price per 1M tokens | $2 to read · $10 to write | $4 to read · $20 to write |
| Reads at once | 1M tokens (about 750,000 words) | 1M tokens (about 750,000 words) |
| Where you can get it | Gemini Enterprise Agent Platform (Google Cloud), Google AI Studio, Gemini for business, Gemini app (Google AI Ultra) | Claude Team and Enterprise, Amazon Bedrock, Gemini Enterprise Agent Platform (Google Cloud), Microsoft Foundry, Microsoft 365 Copilot, GitHub Copilot |
| Can a company host it itself | No | No |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index | 60 | 59 |
| Arena text score | Not measured | 1507 |
| Humanity's Last Exam, Diamond (Scale) | Not measured | 55.00 |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | Not measured | 167 |
| Humanity's Sixth Sense (Scale) | Not measured | 44.60 |
| Best for | Reading and comparing large sets of dense documents, Legal and finance analysis, Multi-step research | Long reports and analysis, Reading long contracts, Multi-step research, Work a cheaper model gets wrong |
Cost of 1,000 jobs
| 1,000 of these | Gemini 4 Carbon | Claude Opus 5.5 |
|---|---|---|
| Support repliesthe customer message, the account notes and two help articles read; a 300-word reply written | $10 | $20 |
| Documents processeda two-page invoice or form read; the fields pulled out | $7 | $14 |
| Calls summariseda 40-minute call transcript read; a summary and next steps written | $26 | $52 |
| Contracts revieweda 40-page contract read against a checklist; a memo of issues written | $75 | $150 |
| Drafts writtena brief and one example read; a 600-word email or proposal section written | $11 | $22 |
Worked out from each vendor’s list price and a fixed size for each job. A product built on a model charges its own price on top. See what every model costs for the same jobs.
Choose Gemini 4 Carbon for
- Reading and comparing large sets of dense documents
- Legal and finance analysis
- Multi-step research
Second on Artificial Analysis's index (60 against the leader's 65) at a quarter of the leader's list price, but only until 30 November, when Google doubles it.
Caveats: The $2 in / $10 out per million tokens (the unit vendors bill by) is introductory; Google says $4 / $20 applies after 30 November 2026, which will lower its score here. Google says it uses more text per task than Gemini 4 Argon, so the bill can run higher at the same list price. One independent test so far. The rankings quoted in Google's launch post are relayed by Google and not counted. In the Gemini app it is for Google AI Ultra subscribers only, per Google; commenters on lower plans and one enterprise account report they cannot select it yet.
Choose Claude Opus 5.5 for
- Long reports and analysis
- Reading long contracts
- Multi-step research
- Work a cheaper model gets wrong
The safer buy for hard work: six points behind Claude Fable 5.2 on Artificial Analysis's index (59 against 65) at half its list price, and the model Anthropic says to start with.
Caveats: Twice the list price of Claude Sonnet 5.5; test your own work on Sonnet before paying for this one. On Arena, where people vote blind between two models' answers, Gemini 4 Argon is ahead, but the gap is within the margin of error. In Microsoft 365 Copilot, Claude models are off by default in the EU, EFTA and UK until an administrator allows Anthropic as a subprocessor (a company permitted to handle your data), per Microsoft.
What people running them say
Gemini 4 Carbon: On the Hacker News (a developer forum) thread about Google's launch, several commenters on the Pro and Plus plans say Carbon shows in the app as Ultra-only, one says their company's enterprise account cannot use it yet, and another says their workplace already finds Argon too expensive. None of this is verified, and it is too little to score.
Claude Opus 5.5: Its launch thread was the year's biggest about a Claude model on Hacker News, a developer forum. One project there credited the model with rewriting a large piece of programming software (the TypeScript compiler) in another programming language, Rust, to a working state in ten hours, and a Vals AI materials-discovery run used it to run simulations on its own. The most-upvoted doubt is a tracker asking whether the model has been quietly made worse since launch.
Questions people ask
Which is better, Gemini 4 Carbon or Claude Opus 5.5?
Gemini 4 Carbon scores higher on the Models at Work leaderboard (75 vs 70 out of 100). On independent tests alone, Gemini 4 Carbon is ahead (92 vs 83). Gemini 4 Carbon is cheaper: 1,000 support replies cost about $10 at list price, against $20 on Claude Opus 5.5, which is 2 times as much. On the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index, one of the independent tests, Gemini 4 Carbon leads 60 to 59.
When should I choose Gemini 4 Carbon over Claude Opus 5.5?
Choose Gemini 4 Carbon for reading and comparing large sets of dense documents, legal and finance analysis, multi-step research. Second on Artificial Analysis's index (60 against the leader's 65) at a quarter of the leader's list price, but only until 30 November, when Google doubles it.
When should I choose Claude Opus 5.5 over Gemini 4 Carbon?
Choose Claude Opus 5.5 for long reports and analysis, reading long contracts, multi-step research, work a cheaper model gets wrong. The safer buy for hard work: six points behind Claude Fable 5.2 on Artificial Analysis's index (59 against 65) at half its list price, and the model Anthropic says to start with.
Which is cheaper, Gemini 4 Carbon or Claude Opus 5.5?
Gemini 4 Carbon costs $2 per million tokens it reads (input) and $10 per million tokens it writes (output) on Google's list price (Google: Gemini 4 Carbon is now available, read Nov 12, 2026). A token is about three-quarters of a word. Claude Opus 5.5 costs $4 per million tokens it reads (input) and $20 per million tokens it writes (output) on Anthropic's list price (Claude pricing, read Nov 12, 2026). A token is about three-quarters of a word.
What do 1,000 jobs cost on Gemini 4 Carbon and Claude Opus 5.5?
At list price: 1,000 support replies cost $10 on Gemini 4 Carbon and $20 on Claude Opus 5.5; 1,000 documents processed cost $7 on Gemini 4 Carbon and $14 on Claude Opus 5.5; 1,000 calls summarised cost $26 on Gemini 4 Carbon and $52 on Claude Opus 5.5; 1,000 contracts reviewed cost $75 on Gemini 4 Carbon and $150 on Claude Opus 5.5; 1,000 drafts written cost $11 on Gemini 4 Carbon and $22 on Claude Opus 5.5. A product built on either model charges its own price on top.
Scores come from the Models at Work leaderboard: Score is 0 to 100 and computed, not typed. 40% is independent testing (Artificial Analysis, Arena, Scale, Epoch, Vals and others; each test is scaled against the best score on this board, and tests of real work, such as finished freelance projects or professional tasks, count double the exams). 30% is price: the vendor's list price for a typical mix of reading and writing, on a fixed scale from $0.05 to $60 per million tokens, so a model that costs a fifth as much gains real ground. 15% is what people report after running it, from Signals and linked threads. 15% is fit: how much text it can take in at once and where a business can get it (the products and clouds that carry it), with a small credit for open weights. A missing component drops out and the rest are reweighted. A model with no independent test yet is provisional and ranks below every measured one. Within three points is a tie. Vendor-published figures are labelled and never counted. Prices are vendor list prices where published; a typical mix assumes three parts reading to one part writing.