Gemini 4 Argon vs Qwen3 Coder 480B Turbo (Venice)
On the 11 use cases both models ran, Qwen3 Coder 480B Turbo (Venice) won 8 to 3 (better outcome first, then lower cost).
Pass rate: Gemini 4 Argon 100% (11 runs) vs Qwen3 Coder 480B Turbo (Venice) 73% (11 runs). Average cost per run: $0.17 vs $0.01.
| Metric | Gemini 4 Argon | Qwen3 Coder 480B Turbo (Venice) |
|---|---|---|
| Runs on shared use cases | 11 | 11 |
| Pass rate | 100% (11/11) | 73% (8/11) |
| Avg cost per run | $0.17 | $0.01 |
| Avg wall time | 3m | 1m |
| Step-ins per run | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| Use cases won | 3 | 8 |
Use case by use case
- AIS collision risk: closest point of approach and alert levels: Qwen3 Coder 480B Turbo (Venice) better (pass 100% vs 100%)
- Backtest a moving-average crossover on a bundled synthetic price file: Qwen3 Coder 480B Turbo (Venice) better (pass 100% vs 100%)
- Best fishing windows from tide, solunar and weather data: Qwen3 Coder 480B Turbo (Venice) better (pass 100% vs 100%)
- Best sailing angle and leg times from a polar table: Gemini 4 Argon better (pass 100% vs 0%)
- Boat fuel range with a reserve over a planned trip: Qwen3 Coder 480B Turbo (Venice) better (pass 100% vs 100%)
- Catch log checked against a made-up fishing regulations table: Gemini 4 Argon better (pass 100% vs 0%)
- Dead reckoning, estimated position with current, and computed set and drift: Qwen3 Coder 480B Turbo (Venice) better (pass 100% vs 100%)
- Go/no-go departure time from a gridded wind file: Qwen3 Coder 480B Turbo (Venice) better (pass 100% vs 100%)
- Great-circle vs rhumb-line passage plan with ETAs: Qwen3 Coder 480B Turbo (Venice) better (pass 100% vs 100%)
- Seeded Monte Carlo retirement odds against a stated success threshold: Qwen3 Coder 480B Turbo (Venice) better (pass 100% vs 100%)
- Water-quality sensor anomaly flags and daily means: Gemini 4 Argon better (pass 100% vs 0%)
Only use cases both models ran are compared; all settings of each model are grouped. How we score.