Gemini 4 Carbon is the new #1 on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index v5
READ THE ORIGINAL SOURCEOpen original sourceartificialanalysis.ai · Opens in a new tabArtificial Analysis reports that Google's Gemini 4 Carbon scores 59 on Intelligence Index v5, leading in 4 of 9 evaluations, including HLE-Diamond, Terminal-Bench-Science, AA-Omniscience and AutomationBench-AA. It ranks second on the Coding Agent Index behind Claude Opus 5.5 and has a 1M-token context window. The model is rolled out to selected users only and is not yet publicly available, with a 50% launch discount of no confirmed end date.
One primary source; other links are context, not independent corroboration.
- Primary sourceHacker News · AI
- Discovery linkHacker News
A community post points to the original link. Discussion and upvotes do not establish accuracy.
Open full article view →- Community discussion+5
- Fetched source page+30
- No editor link review+0
- Community link+0
This measures the stored source trail and editorial steps. It does not certify accuracy, peer review, or independent corroboration. Popularity adds no points.
View full scoring →Read the scoring rubric →What the source says
Artificial Analysis reports that Google's Gemini 4 Carbon scores 59 on Intelligence Index v5, leading in 4 of 9 evaluations, including HLE-Diamond, Terminal-Bench-Science, AA-Omniscience and AutomationBench-AA. It ranks second on the Coding Agent Index behind Claude Opus 5.5 and has a 1M-token context window. The model is rolled out to selected users only and is not yet publicly available, with a 50% launch discount of no confirmed end date.
A READER'S EVIDENCE CHECKHow to read this signalSix questions about claims, sources, risks, and open checks
This is a signal-level guide until claim-level evidence is available. “Not recorded” means the evidence has not been assessed here; it does not mean a result is false. How we check AI news →
- 01Who is making each claim?
The claimant and whether each claim was measured or asserted are not recorded in this public brief.
- 02What was actually tested?
Not recorded per claim. Check the source for sample size, tasks, model and benchmark versions, and reproducibility.
- 03Where are the sources?
Original link: artificialanalysis.ai. Brief basis: fetched source page. Primary page date and quote locations are not established in this panel.
- 04What could mislead?
Source claims not independently checked; results are Artificial Analysis's own benchmark measurements and the model is not yet publicly available.
- 05What is at risk if wrong?
Not assessed per claim. Consider safety, privacy, cost, and adoption decisions before relying on the result.
- 06What would change the view?
No claim-specific check is recorded. An inspectable primary method or independent replication could change the assessment.
Key findings from the stored brief
- Gemini 4 Carbon (high) scores 59 on Intelligence Index v5, leading in 4 of 9 evaluations.
- On the Coding Agent Index it scores 59, three points behind Claude Code with Claude Opus 5.5 (max) at 62.
- Cost per Intelligence Index task is $7.76 at standard pricing, about 23% less than Claude Opus 5.5 (max).
- On AA-Omniscience v1.1 it scores 54 with a hallucination rate of 11%, second lowest among tested models.
Source claims not independently checked; results are Artificial Analysis's own benchmark measurements and the model is not yet publicly available.
This is a source-based abstract, not independent validation of the source's claims.
Evidence & sources
These links show where the signal came from and what the source page linked to. A linked page is context, not independent corroboration.
Related archive coverage
These relationships record a citation or topic overlap, not confirmation of the finding.
A community post points to the original link. Discussion and upvotes do not establish accuracy.
Timeline & updates
- Signal dated by source or discovery feed
This timestamp places the signal in the radar. It may be the discovery post date rather than the primary page's first publication date.
- Shared brief stored
AINewsIQ prepared one abstract from fetched source page.
A publication revision history is not stored for this signal. New engagement snapshots do not mean the source itself changed.
Why this may matter
The results suggest a notable improvement in Google's coding and knowledge-work performance relative to its prior models, while showing competitive cost per task. Readers comparing frontier models for reasoning and agentic workloads may find these benchmark comparisons relevant.
Limits and open questions
Source claims not independently checked; results are Artificial Analysis's own benchmark measurements and the model is not yet publicly available.
Organization-specific financial, security, and operational effects require the organization's own context and review.
Discussion
Comments are reviewed before publication. Discuss the evidence, not the person.
No published comments yet.
Reader discussion opens with accounts. You can read the original source and published comments now.