Head-to-head comparison across 1benchmark categories. Overall scores shown here use BenchLM's provisional ranking lane.
Command A+
32
GPT-5.4 nano
60
Pick GPT-5.4 nano if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Command A+ only becomes the better choice if its workflow or ecosystem matters more than the raw scoreboard.
Multimodal
+6.3 difference
Command A+
GPT-5.4 nano
$2.5 / $10
$0.2 / $1.25
272 t/s
191 t/s
0.25s
3.64s
128K
400K
Pick GPT-5.4 nano if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Command A+ only becomes the better choice if its workflow or ecosystem matters more than the raw scoreboard.
GPT-5.4 nano is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 60 to 32. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
GPT-5.4 nano's sharpest advantage is in multimodal & grounded, where it averages 66.1 against 59.8. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is MMMU-Pro, 63% to 66.1%.
Command A+ is also the more expensive model on tokens at $2.50 input / $10.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.20 input / $1.25 output per 1M tokens for GPT-5.4 nano. That is roughly 8.0x on output cost alone. GPT-5.4 nano gives you the larger context window at 400K, compared with 128K for Command A+.
GPT-5.4 nano is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 60 to 32. The biggest single separator in this matchup is MMMU-Pro, where the scores are 63% and 66.1%.
GPT-5.4 nano has the edge for multimodal and grounded tasks in this comparison, averaging 66.1 versus 59.8. Inside this category, MMMU-Pro is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
For engineers, researchers, and the plain curious — a weekly brief on new models, ranking shifts, and pricing changes.
Free. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.