Skip to main content
Van Data Team

text model comparison

Claude Mythos 5.2 vs Gemini 4 Carbon

Claude Mythos 5.2 and Gemini 4 Carbon are both current text models, from Anthropic and Google. Gemini 4 Carbon is 75% cheaper per 1M input tokens than Claude Mythos 5.2, $2 vs $8. In Anthropic's Claude Fable 5.2 launch table, Claude Mythos 5.2 scores 75.3% on Terminal-Bench-Science 0.1 and Gemini 4 Carbon 64.8%.

Lower price per 1M input tokens
Gemini 4 Carbon$2 against $8
Newer release
Claude Mythos 5.2Nov 2026 against Oct 2026

Data verified November 10, 2026 · Dataset 2026-11-10

Share this

Side by side

Claude Mythos 5.2 and Gemini 4 Carbon, line by line

Prices in effect today, compared at the same tier wherever both list one. The better value in each row is highlighted.

FactClaude Mythos 5.2Gemini 4 Carbon
Price
Price per 1M input tokens$8$2 (better)
Price per 1M output tokens$40$10 (better)
Independent benchmarks
Arena TextNot measured1526 Elo (#1 of 53)
Arena WebDevNot measured1768 Elo (#3 of 48)
Specs
ProviderAnthropicGoogle
Release dateNovember 9, 2026October 28, 2026
Accesslimited accesslimited access
Context window1,000,000 tokensNot reported
Max output128,000 tokensNot reported
Inputtext, imagetext, image
Outputtexttext

No independent benchmark has scored both models yet. Each rank counts the current models scored on that benchmark.

Scores:Arena · 2026-11-10

Provider results

What the labs report

Results tables a lab published with one of its models, where it lists both Claude Mythos 5.2 and Gemini 4 Carbon. These are the lab's own figures, not independent measurements, and each table is read on its own: labs run benchmarks with different harnesses and budgets.

Anthropic, Claude Fable 5.2 launch table, November 9, 2026Anthropic · 2026-11-10

BenchmarkClaude Mythos 5.2Gemini 4 Carbon
Terminal-Bench-Science 0.175.3% (better)64.8%

Anthropic's table from the Claude Fable 5.2 and Mythos 5.2 announcement, each model at its highest available effort, with Anthropic's safeguards on; competitor figures come from their developers' system cards or the benchmarks' leaderboards. On FrontierCode 2.0 Fable 5.2 and 5.1 ran at xhigh effort and Gemini 4 Carbon at medium. Anthropic gives a Mythos 5.2 score for Terminal-Bench-Science only. Left out here: Anthropic's own evaluations (CVE Rediscovery, de novo binder design, RoboDojo Sim), Irregular's CyScenarioBench, where each lab's score covers different tasks, and Artificial Analysis's AA-Briefcase.

Charts

Against every current text model

Where Claude Mythos 5.2 and Gemini 4 Carbon land among the current models of their task, on every independent benchmark, on price and on context.

Where each stands

Only Gemini 4 Carbon has a current Arena Text score: #1 of 53. Each bar is the share of current models it beats.

Claude Mythos 5.2 and Gemini 4 Carbon among the current text models, one row per benchmark, price and context window.

Independent benchmarks

Arena Text

Claude Mythos 5.2: Not scored

Gemini 4 Carbon:#1of 53

1,526 Elo · ahead of 100%

Arena WebDev

Claude Mythos 5.2: Not scored

Gemini 4 Carbon:#3of 48

1,768 Elo · ahead of 96%

Price and context

Price per 1M input tokens

Claude Mythos 5.2:#53of 61

$8 · cheaper than 12%

Gemini 4 Carbon:#32of 61

$2 · cheaper than 28%

Price per 1M output tokens

Claude Mythos 5.2:#53of 61

$40 · cheaper than 12%

Gemini 4 Carbon:#37of 61

$10 · cheaper than 30%

Context window

Claude Mythos 5.2:#28of 70

1M tokens · longer than 23%

Gemini 4 Carbon: Not listed

Scores fromArena · 2026-11-10

Quality against price

Arena Text · measured November 9, 2026

Gemini 4 Carbon scores 1,526 at $4 (blended price per 1M tokens). The line joins the current models no other beats on both price and Arena Text score; hover any point to name it.

Quality against priceArena Text score against price for 45 text models, Claude Mythos 5.2 and Gemini 4 Carbon marked.1,2501,3001,3501,4001,4501,5001,550$0.30$1$3$10MOST ATTRACTIVE QUADRANTMedian price $3Median 1,473Blended price per 1M tokens (3 input : 1 output), log scaleArena Text (Elo)Gemini 4 Carbon
Quality against price: the data
Arena Text score against price for 45 text models, Claude Mythos 5.2 and Gemini 4 Carbon marked.
ModelProviderBlended price per 1M tokensArena Text (Elo)
Gemini 4 CarbonGoogle$41,526
Gemini 4 ArgonGoogle$41,522
Muse WonderMeta$81,511
Claude Opus 5.5Anthropic$81,506
Claude Fable 5Anthropic$201,504
Claude Fable 5.1Anthropic$201,503
Gemini 3.8 FlashGoogle$1.501,497
Muse Spark 1.3Meta$21,496
Claude Opus 5Anthropic$101,490
Kimi K3Moonshot Kimi$61,487
GPT-5.6 SolOpenAI$81,485
Qwen3.8-MaxAlibaba Qwen$31,484
Gemini 3.6 FlashGoogle$31,483
GLM-5.3Z.ai$2.151,483
Claude Opus 4.8Anthropic$101,482
GPT-6.1 SolOpenAI$41,482
GPT-5.5OpenAI$111,481
MiMo-V2.6-ProXiaomi MiMo$0.541,480
GPT-5.4OpenAI$5.631,475
DeepSeek-V4.1-FlashDeepSeek$0.521,475
GPT-6 AstraOpenAI$201,474
GLM-5.3-FlashZ.ai$0.241,474
Gemini 3 Flash PreviewGoogle$1.131,473
Grok 4.20xAI$1.561,472
Claude Sonnet 5.5Anthropic$41,472
GPT-5.6 TerraOpenAI$4.501,468
Grok 4.5xAI$31,466
DeepSeek-V4-ProDeepSeek$1.981,464
Claude Sonnet 5Anthropic$41,461
GPT-6 SolOpenAI$41,457
Grok 4.6xAI$31,456
Gemini 3.5 Flash-LiteGoogle$0.851,455
GPT-5.6 LunaOpenAI$0.451,453
MiMo-V2.6-FlashXiaomi MiMo$0.181,448
Step 5 PreviewStepFun$1.431,448
Grok 4.3xAI$1.561,442
Grok 4.7xAI$31,442
GPT-6 LunaOpenAI$0.201,441
Mistral Large 4Mistral AI$1.051,423
Claude Haiku 5.5Anthropic$0.201,422
GPT-4.1OpenAI$3.501,415
Inkling 2 SmallThinking Machines Lab$0.471,412
Solar Pro 4Upstage$0.521,387
GPT-4.1 miniOpenAI$0.701,383
GPT-4.1 nanoOpenAI$0.181,322

Cost

What each costs

Example workloads at each provider's listed rates, then every other rate either one lists. The cheaper figure in each row is highlighted.

The same work, priced

For 10M input and 2M output tokens, Claude Mythos 5.2 costs 4.0 times as much as Gemini 4 Carbon, at each provider's listed rates.

What Claude Mythos 5.2 and Gemini 4 Carbon cost for the same work, at the rates each provider lists.

  • 10M input and 2M output tokens

    Claude Mythos 5.2 costs 4.0× as much

    Claude Mythos 5.2
    $160
    Gemini 4 Carbon
    $40

  • The same, with 9M of the input tokens cached

    Claude Mythos 5.2 costs 3.9× as much

    Claude Mythos 5.2
    $89.80
    Gemini 4 Carbon
    $22.90
Workload or rateClaude Mythos 5.2Gemini 4 Carbon
Example workloads
10M input and 2M output tokens$160$40 (better)
The same, with 9M of the input tokens cached$89.80$22.90 (better)
The same, through the batch API$80Not listed
Other listed rates
1M input tokens, cached$0.20$0.10 (better)
1M input tokens, 5-minute cache write$10Not listed
1M input tokens, 1-hour cache write$16Not listed
1M input tokens, batch$4Not listed
1M output tokens, batch$20Not listed

Your own bill will differ. These figures use list prices and example workloads. The AI Model Cost Audit reviews your real usage, shortlists models that score as well for each task for less, and estimates the savings.

Launch price $100, regular price $150

Book the cost audit

Verdict

When to choose each

Claude Mythos 5.2

Where it leads

  • Batch pricing, $4 input and $20 output per 1M tokens

Best for

  • Vetted security teams finding, reproducing and fixing vulnerabilities
  • Dual-use research in security or biology that Claude Fable 5.2's safeguards block

Watch out for

  • Limited access: only organisations verified through Anthropic's programs, such as the Cyber Verification Program, can call it
  • No independent benchmark has scored it; every number for it comes from Anthropic
Full Claude Mythos 5.2 profile

Gemini 4 Carbon

Where it leads

  • Lower input and output prices, $2 and $10 vs $8 and $40 per 1M tokens
  • Cheaper cached input, $0.10 vs $0.20 per 1M tokens

Best for

  • Finding, validating and patching vulnerabilities, for teams in Google's Fairwind Program
  • Long-horizon engineering over very long inputs, once access opens

Watch out for

  • Limited access: Google gives it first to a small group of cyber defenders, then to more trusted partners through its Fairwind Program, which governments, healthcare providers and telecoms apply to; there is no public API or app access yet
  • The $2 and $10 rates are introductory, with cached input 95% off; after an introductory period Google has not dated, $4 input and $20 output per 1M tokens apply
  • In Google's own table it trails GPT-6 Astra on FrontierSWE 2 (61.2% against 65.5%) and Claude Opus 5.5 on OSWorld-2.1 (81.5% against 87.2%)
  • Google publishes no context window or output limit for Carbon yet
Full Gemini 4 Carbon profile

From benchmark to production

Building on Claude Mythos 5.2 or Gemini 4 Carbon?

Public scores rarely hold on your own data. We test both models on your real tasks, then build the agent or pipeline around the one that wins.

AI Model Cost AuditLaunch price $100, regular price $150What the audit includes

Book the cost auditAI agent development

FAQ

Claude Mythos 5.2 vs Gemini 4 Carbon FAQ

Which is cheaper, Claude Mythos 5.2 or Gemini 4 Carbon?

Gemini 4 Carbon is 75% cheaper per 1M input tokens than Claude Mythos 5.2, $2 vs $8. For 10M input and 2M output tokens, Claude Mythos 5.2 costs $160 and Gemini 4 Carbon $40 at standard rates.

Which is cheaper with prompt caching, Claude Mythos 5.2 or Gemini 4 Carbon?

Claude Mythos 5.2 charges $0.20 per 1M cached input tokens, 98% below its standard input rate, and Gemini 4 Carbon $0.10, 95% below. With 9M of 10M input tokens cached and 2M output tokens, Claude Mythos 5.2 costs $89.80 and Gemini 4 Carbon $22.90.

How do Claude Mythos 5.2 and Gemini 4 Carbon compare in Anthropic's own results?

In the Claude Fable 5.2 launch table (November 9, 2026), Claude Mythos 5.2 leads on Terminal-Bench-Science 0.1, 75.3% to 64.8%. These are Anthropic's figures, not independent measurements.

Further reading

More on Claude Mythos 5.2 and Gemini 4 Carbon

Articles on Claude Mythos 5.2 and Gemini 4 Carbon

Related comparisons

Production evaluation

Choosing between Claude Mythos 5.2 and Gemini 4 Carbon?

Public benchmarks narrow the shortlist. We run both on your own tasks, data and cost limits, then build the routing and review controls to run the winner in production.

  • A head-to-head evaluation on your real workload
  • Routing between models by cost and difficulty
Compare all modelsBook a consultation