Claude Haiku 5.5 vs Gemini 4 Argon
Which one, when
claude-haiku-5-5 and gemini-4-argon both read text and images across about a million tokens of context (1000000 and 1048576), but the rate cards are far apart: $0.1 input and $0.5 output against $2 and $10, 20x on both, with cache reads at $0.01 against $0.1. Pick claude-haiku-5-5 for high-volume text and image work, replies up to 128000 tokens, or thinking you can switch off. Pick gemini-4-argon when the input includes audio or video, which claude-haiku-5-5 does not take.
Pricing
| Claude Haiku 5.5 | Gemini 4 Argon | Δ | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / 1M tokens | $0.1 | $2 | 0.05× |
| Output / 1M tokens | $0.5 | $10 | 0.05× |
| Cache read / 1M tokens | $0.01 | $0.1 | 0.1× |
| Cache write | 1.25x (5m) / 2x (1h) | - | - |
Rates from the live catalogue at build time; each model page carries the current rate card.
Where they sit · input price per 1M tokens across all 79 chat models on this billing unit (log scale)
Capabilities
| Claude Haiku 5.5 | Gemini 4 Argon | |
|---|---|---|
| Tool calling | yes | yes |
| Thinking control | configurable | yes (vendor dial not published) |
| Structured output | yes | yes |
| Prompt caching | explicit (you mark the prefix) | implicit + explicit |
| Cache lifetime | 5m default, 1h option | not published |
| Minimum cached prefix | 1024 tokens | 4096 tokens |
Specs
| Claude Haiku 5.5 | Gemini 4 Argon | |
|---|---|---|
| Input modalities | text image | text image audio video |
| Output modalities | text | text |
| Released | 2026-10-07 | 2026-10-13 |
| Knowledge cutoff | 2026-06 | 2026-03 |
| Context window | 1M | 1M |
| Max output | 128K | 66K |
| Thinking parameter | output_config.effort | - |
| Accepted values | output_config.effort
| - |
| Default | medium | - |
Specs are transcribed from each vendor’s documentation; a row a vendor does not publish is left out rather than inferred. Full sources: Claude Haiku 5.5 · Gemini 4 Argon
One prompt, both models, measured through the gateway
Claude Haiku 5.5 passed · 3 sentences
Enabling reasoning makes the model generate a long internal chain of thought before its answer, and those thinking tokens are billed as output tokens, which cost several times more than input tokens. The model often produces many times more output per request than it did without reasoning, so the per-call cost rises even when the visible answer looks about the same length. Because that extra spend scales with every request, the bill roughly doubled, and we can control it by setting reasoning budgets, using reasoning only for tasks that need it, or routing simpler requests to a non-reasoning model.
out 332 tok (+159 thinking) latency 2.9 s
Gemini 4 Argon passed · 3 sentences
Enabling the reasoning feature forces the AI to generate an extensive, hidden "chain of thought" to solve complex problems before delivering the final answer. Because LLM providers bill us per token generated, we are now paying for thousands of these invisible "thinking" words on top of the standard visible output. While this doubles our raw usage costs per query, it represents an investment in significantly higher accuracy and drastically reduced error rates for our most critical tasks.
out 91 tok latency 4.7 s
Instruction following (exactly three sentences, so countable), audience shaping (CFO register), and the hidden-thinking billing gap the token meters below expose.
Claude Haiku 5.5 passed · 8/8 cases
```python def longest_run(xs): if not xs: return 0 best = cur = 1 for i in range(1, len(xs)): if xs[i] == xs[i - 1]: cur += 1 else: cur = 1 best = max(best, cur) return best ``` The bug is that `cur` counts adjacent equal *pairs*, not run *elements*. A run of k equal items produces k−1 matching pairs, so the function returns one less than the true length, and a single-element input produces no pairs at all, so it returns 0 instead of 1. Resetting `cur` to 0 on a mismatch compounds this by starting every run one step behind. The fix starts both `cur` and `best` at 1 (a non-empty list always has a run of at least one element), resets `cur` to 1 on a mismatch, and updates `best` after every element rather than only inside the equal-branch. The empty-list guard keeps the function from returning 1 for `[]`. […]
out 1012 tok (+591 thinking) latency 6.0 s
Gemini 4 Argon passed · 8/8 cases
```python def longest_run(xs): if not xs: return 0 best = 1 cur = 1 for i in range(1, len(xs)): if xs[i] == xs[i - 1]: cur += 1 best = max(best, cur) else: cur = 1 return best ``` The bug occurs because the original function counts the number of matching adjacent *pairs* rather than the actual number of *elements* in a run, causing all non-empty results to be off by one. Because a single element constitutes a valid run of length 1, initializing and resetting `cur` and `best` to `0` instead of `1` means the first element of any sequence is never counted; this causes single-element lists (where the loop doesn't run) to wrongly return `0` and makes it seem like runs at the end are missed because a pair of matching elements only increments `cur` to `1` instead of `2`. […]
out 286 tok latency 7.5 s
Whether the fix is actually correct (runnable), explanation density, and token efficiency on a bounded task.
Claude Haiku 5.5 passed · 5/5 fields, guidance "Formal guidance withheld pending the Q4 "
```json { "company": "Meridian Robotics", "quarter": "September quarter", "revenue_usd_m": null, "growth_pct": 11, "guidance": "Formal guidance withheld pending the Q4 close" } ``` Notes: The text gives revenue as 412 but doesn't state the currency, so I left `revenue_usd_m` as null. Growth is "eleven and change," so 11 is an approximation.
out 725 tok (+572 thinking) latency 4.6 s
Gemini 4 Argon passed · 5/5 fields, guidance "withheld pending the Q4 close"
```json { "company": "Meridian Robotics", "quarter": "September quarter", "revenue_usd_m": null, "growth_pct": "eleven and change", "guidance": "withheld pending the Q4 close" } ```
out 68 tok latency 5.8 s
Schema obedience (no invented fields), hallucination pressure (guidance is explicitly withheld), and structured-output path differences.
Claude Haiku 5.5 passed · 120 words, 0 banned, 1 question
**Introducing Prompt Cache Sync, the newest feature in GatewayOne.** Teams routing requests across OpenAI, Anthropic, and Google have often paid to process the same long system prompts again and again. Now the gateway stores those prompts once and reuses them wherever they appear, regardless of provider. Repeated context is matched by content hash, so cached prefixes return faster and cost less, with no changes to your application code. How much could this save your team? Enable Prompt Cache Sync from the dashboard, and your next billing report will show the difference. Cache entries follow your existing retention settings and can be purged per project at any time. Availability begins this week for all Scale and Enterprise plans worldwide. Start today.
out 2164 tok (+1929 thinking) latency 9.9 s
Gemini 4 Argon passed · 120 words, 0 banned, 1 question
Are you paying twice for the exact same AI responses? Today, we are introducing Cross-Provider Prompt Caching for our API gateway, a new feature designed to reduce your artificial intelligence infrastructure costs and latency. When your applications send identical prompts to different large language models, our gateway now intercepts the request and serves a verified, cached response in milliseconds. It works across OpenAI, Anthropic, and open-source models simultaneously. If your primary provider experiences an outage, your fallback model still benefits from the shared cache Layer, preventing expensive redundant computations. Engineering teams can configure custom time-to-live settings, set similarity thresholds, and monitor cache hit rates directly from the dashboard. Activate Cross-Provider Prompt Caching in your gateway settings today and start saving.
out 156 tok latency 6.3 s
Constraint obedience (word budget, banned-word list, the single question), style fingerprint, and length control.
Switch between them with one line
Both ids are in every tab below; the highlighted pair of lines is the only edit. Same endpoint, same key, same request shape.
from openai import OpenAI
client = OpenAI(
base_url="https://synthorai.io/v1",
api_key="sk-syn-...",
)
resp = client.chat.completions.create(
model="claude-haiku-5-5",
# model="gemini-4-argon", # uncomment this line, comment the one above
messages=[{"role": "user", "content": "Summarize this diff"}],
reasoning_effort="medium",
)
print(resp.choices[0].message.content)import OpenAI from "openai";
const client = new OpenAI({
baseURL: "https://synthorai.io/v1",
apiKey: "sk-syn-...",
});
const resp = await client.chat.completions.create({
model: "claude-haiku-5-5",
// model: "gemini-4-argon", // uncomment this line, comment the one above
messages: [{ role: "user", content: "Summarize this diff" }],
reasoning_effort: "medium",
});
console.log(resp.choices[0].message.content);curl https://synthorai.io/v1/chat/completions \
-H "Authorization: Bearer sk-syn-..." \
-H "Content-Type: application/json" \
-d '{
"model": "claude-haiku-5-5",
# "model": "gemini-4-argon", # uncomment this line, comment the one above
"messages": [{"role": "user", "content": "Hello"}],
"reasoning_effort": "medium"
}'package main
import (
"context"
"fmt"
"github.com/openai/openai-go/v3"
"github.com/openai/openai-go/v3/option"
)
func main() {
client := openai.NewClient(
option.WithBaseURL("https://synthorai.io/v1"),
option.WithAPIKey("sk-syn-..."),
)
resp, _ := client.Chat.Completions.New(context.TODO(), openai.ChatCompletionNewParams{
Model: "claude-haiku-5-5",
// Model: "gemini-4-argon", // uncomment this line, comment the one above
Messages: []openai.ChatCompletionMessageParamUnion{
openai.UserMessage("Summarize this diff"),
},
ReasoningEffort: openai.ReasoningEffortMedium,
})
fmt.Println(resp.Choices[0].Message.Content)
}import com.openai.client.OpenAIClient;
import com.openai.client.okhttp.OpenAIOkHttpClient;
import com.openai.models.chat.completions.*;
import com.openai.models.ReasoningEffort;
OpenAIClient client = OpenAIOkHttpClient.builder()
.baseUrl("https://synthorai.io/v1")
.apiKey("sk-syn-...")
.build();
ChatCompletion resp = client.chat().completions().create(
ChatCompletionCreateParams.builder()
.model("claude-haiku-5-5")
// .model("gemini-4-argon") // uncomment this line, comment the one above
.addUserMessage("Summarize this diff")
.reasoningEffort(ReasoningEffort.MEDIUM)
.build());
System.out.println(resp.choices().get(0).message().content().orElse(""));FAQ
Which is cheaper, Claude Haiku 5.5 or Gemini 4 Argon?
Claude Haiku 5.5 is cheaper on the "Input / 1M tokens" row ($0.1 vs $2, 20× apart). Other rows may point the other way; the table above carries the full rate card, and real cost depends on your mix.
Can I A/B test Claude Haiku 5.5 against Gemini 4 Argon without two integrations?
Yes. Both are served through the same OpenAI-compatible endpoint with one API key. Switching is a one-line change to the model id, so you can route a fraction of traffic to each and compare bills directly.
Do Claude Haiku 5.5 and Gemini 4 Argon support prompt caching?
Yes. Both bill cache reads below their input rate, so warm-prefix workloads cost less than the list rates suggest. The exact cache-read rows are in the pricing table above.