Skip to main content
BenchLM
Advertise

Model comparison

DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) vs GPT-5.4 nano

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 20 shared benchmark results across 5 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

55.47/100
Margin
11.3pts
winning →
66.79/100
3 category wins0 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) #81 (Estimated); GPT-5.4 nano #25 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) and GPT-5.4 nano share 20 comparable benchmark results. 3 of 8 categories are comparable. 18 results are unique to DeepSeek V4 Pro (High); 9 to GPT-5.4 nano.

Updated July 23, 2026
Shared results
20
DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) only
18
GPT-5.4 nano only
9
Comparable categories
3 / 8

Pick GPT-5.4 nano if you want the stronger benchmark profile. DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) only becomes the better choice if mathematics is the priority or you want the cheaper token bill.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 20 shared benchmark results across 5 evidence categories; 3 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.

Why this result

GPT-5.4 nano is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 66.79 to 55.47. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.

GPT-5.4 nano is also the more expensive model on tokens at $0.20 input / $1.25 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.43 input / $0.87 output per 1M tokens for DeepSeek V4 Pro (High). DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 400K for GPT-5.4 nano.

Category breakdown

Exact category averages are shown below. Not measured means BenchLM does not have enough sourced public coverage for that model and category.

Category scores and score margins for DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) and GPT-5.4 nano
CategoryDeepSeek V4 Pro (High)ΔGPT-5.4 nano
MathDeepSeek V4 Pro (High)94.0Margin← 73.0GPT-5.4 nano21.0
AgenticDeepSeek V4 Pro (High)70.6Margin← 27.7GPT-5.4 nano42.9
KnowledgeDeepSeek V4 Pro (High)57.0Margin← 13.2GPT-5.4 nano43.8
CodingDeepSeek V4 Pro (High)69.8MarginNo overlapGPT-5.4 nanoNot measured
MultimodalDeepSeek V4 Pro (High)Not measuredMarginNo overlapGPT-5.4 nano66.1

Decisive benchmark drivers

The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.

More
A · DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)B · GPT-5.4 nano

  1. Terminal-Bench 2.0

    Agentic
    Source ↗
    A 63.3%B 46.3%
    Winner: DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)Δ 17
    Terminal-Bench 2.0: DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) scored 63.3%; GPT-5.4 nano scored 46.3%. DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) wins this benchmark.

  2. GPQA

    Knowledge
    Source ↗
    A 89.1%B 82.8%
    Winner: DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)Δ 6.3
    GPQA: DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) scored 89.1%; GPT-5.4 nano scored 82.8%. DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) wins this benchmark.

  3. HLE

    Knowledge
    Source ↗
    A 34.5%B 37.7%
    Winner: GPT-5.4 nanoΔ 3.2
    HLE: DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) scored 34.5%; GPT-5.4 nano scored 37.7%. GPT-5.4 nano wins this benchmark.

Operational comparison

Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.

MetricDeepSeek V4 Pro (High)GPT-5.4 nanoComparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensDeepSeek V4 Pro (High)$0.435 input / $0.87 outputGPT-5.4 nano$0.2 input / $1.25 outputDeepSeek V4 Pro (High) has the lower combined listed price.
Generation speedtokens per secondDeepSeek V4 Pro (High)Not availableGPT-5.4 nano191 tok/sA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenDeepSeek V4 Pro (High)Not availableGPT-5.4 nano3.64 sA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensDeepSeek V4 Pro (High)1MGPT-5.4 nano400KDeepSeek V4 Pro (High) lists the larger context window.

Benchmark Deep Dive

AgenticDeepSeek V4 Pro (High) wins
BenchmarkDeepSeek V4 Pro (High)GPT-5.4 nanoResult
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 63.3%46.3%DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads
BrowseCompSource 80.4%—Not comparable
HLE w/ toolsSource 44.7%—Not comparable
MCP AtlasSource 74.2%56.1%DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads
ToolathlonSource 49%35.5%DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads
τ²-bench resultsSource 94.2%76%DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads
GDPval-AASource 39.9%30.0%DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads
GDPval-AASource 12991100DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads
AA Agentic IndexSource 34.4%27.5%DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads
OSWorld-VerifiedSource —39%Not comparable
APEX-Agents-AASource —24.9%Not comparable
Coding
BenchmarkDeepSeek V4 Pro (High)GPT-5.4 nanoResult
CodeforcesSource 2919.0—Not comparable
SWE-bench VerifiedSource 79.4%—Not comparable
SWE-bench ProSource 54.4%—Not comparable
SWE MultilingualSource 74.1%—Not comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 63.3%—Not comparable
AA-SciCodeSource 46.4%46.9%GPT-5.4 nano leads
AA Coding IndexSource 58.7%56.1%DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads
Vibe Code BenchSource —26.10%Not comparable
Reasoning
BenchmarkDeepSeek V4 Pro (High)GPT-5.4 nanoResult
MRCR 1MSource 83.3%—Not comparable
CorpusQA 1MSource 56.5%—Not comparable
AA-LCRSource 65.0%66.0%GPT-5.4 nano leads
CritPtSource 10.0%9.3%DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads
KnowledgeDeepSeek V4 Pro (High) wins
BenchmarkDeepSeek V4 Pro (High)GPT-5.4 nanoResult
MMLU-ProSource 87.1%—Not comparable
SimpleQASource 46.2%—Not comparable
Chinese-SimpleQASource 77.7%—Not comparable
GPQASource 89.1%82.8%DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads
GPQA-DSource 89.1%—Not comparable
HLESource 34.5%37.7%GPT-5.4 nano leads
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource 43.1%38.2%DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads
AA-GPQA DiamondSource 90.5%81.7%DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads
AA-HLESource 33.5%26.5%DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads
AA-Omniscience IndexSource -9.7%-29.5%DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource 41.8%25.4%DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource 88.6%73.6%GPT-5.4 nano leads
HLE w/o toolsSource —24.3%Not comparable
MathDeepSeek V4 Pro (High) wins
BenchmarkDeepSeek V4 Pro (High)GPT-5.4 nanoResult
HMMT Feb 2026Source 94.0%—Not comparable
IMOAnswerBenchSource 88.0%—Not comparable
ApexSource 27.4%—Not comparable
Apex ShortlistSource 85.5%—Not comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source —25.860%Not comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source —6.250%Not comparable
Multimodal
BenchmarkDeepSeek V4 Pro (High)GPT-5.4 nanoResult
Design Arena WebsiteSource 1264—Not comparable
MMMU-ProSource —66.1%Not comparable
MMMU-Pro w/ PythonSource —69.5%Not comparable
AA-MMMU-ProSource —65.4%Not comparable
Inst. Following
BenchmarkDeepSeek V4 Pro (High)GPT-5.4 nanoResult
AA-IFBenchSource 71.3%75.9%GPT-5.4 nano leads
Frequently Asked Questions (4)

Which is better, DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) or GPT-5.4 nano?

GPT-5.4 nano is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 66.79 to 55.47. The biggest single separator in this matchup is Terminal-Bench 2.0, where the scores are 63.3% and 46.3%.

Which is better for knowledge tasks, DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) or GPT-5.4 nano?

DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 57 versus 43.8. Inside this category, AA-Omniscience Index is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for math, DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) or GPT-5.4 nano?

DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 94 versus 21. GPT-5.4 nano stays close enough that the answer can still flip depending on your workload.

Which is better for agentic tasks, DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) or GPT-5.4 nano?

DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 70.6 versus 42.9. Inside this category, GDPval-AA is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Related Comparisons

Explore More

DeepSeek Compare Pricing Methodology Find Your Best LLM Overall Rankings
Last updated: July 23, 2026

Choose a model with this week’s evidence

Join 2,000+ readers for ranking moves, pricing changes, and the claims that still need proof.

One email each week. Unsubscribe anytime.