Model comparison
Gemini 2.5 Flash vs GPT-5.4
Head-to-head evidence from 15 shared benchmark results across 7 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: Gemini 2.5 Flash #130 (Supported); GPT-5.4 #8 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Gemini 2.5 Flash and GPT-5.4 share 15 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 0 results are unique to Gemini 2.5 Flash; 37 to GPT-5.4.
Updated July 20, 2026- Shared results
- 15
- Gemini 2.5 Flash only
- 0
- GPT-5.4 only
- 37
- Comparable categories
- 1 / 8
Pick GPT-5.4 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Gemini 2.5 Flash only becomes the better choice if you want the cheaper token bill or you would rather avoid the extra latency and token burn of a reasoning model.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 15 shared benchmark results across 7 evidence categories; 1 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 is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 74.24 to 48.09. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
GPT-5.4's sharpest advantage is in mathematics, where it averages 42.5 against 4.7. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3), 4.844% to 47.600%.
GPT-5.4 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $2.50 input / $15.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.30 input / $2.50 output per 1M tokens for Gemini 2.5 Flash. That is roughly 6.0x on output cost alone. GPT-5.4 is the reasoning model in the pair, while Gemini 2.5 Flash is not. That usually helps on harder chain-of-thought-heavy tests, but it can also mean more latency and more token spend in real use. GPT-5.4 gives you the larger context window at 1.05M, compared with 1M for Gemini 2.5 Flash.
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 | Gemini 2.5 Flash | Δ | GPT-5.4 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Math | Gemini 2.5 Flash4.7 | Margin→ 37.8 | GPT-5.442.5 |
| Agentic | Gemini 2.5 FlashNot measured | MarginNo overlap | GPT-5.477.2 |
| Coding | Gemini 2.5 FlashNot measured | MarginNo overlap | GPT-5.457.7 |
| Knowledge | Gemini 2.5 FlashNot measured | MarginNo overlap | GPT-5.457.6 |
| Multimodal | Gemini 2.5 FlashNot measured | MarginNo overlap | GPT-5.473.2 |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)
MathA 4.844%B 47.600%Winner: GPT-5.4Δ 42.8FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3): Gemini 2.5 Flash scored 4.844%; GPT-5.4 scored 47.600%. GPT-5.4 wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)
MathA 4.167%B 27.100%Winner: GPT-5.4Δ 22.9FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4): Gemini 2.5 Flash scored 4.167%; GPT-5.4 scored 27.100%. GPT-5.4 wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Gemini 2.5 Flash | GPT-5.4 | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Gemini 2.5 Flash$0.3 input / $2.5 output | GPT-5.4$2.5 input / $15 output | Gemini 2.5 Flash has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Gemini 2.5 Flash221 tok/s | GPT-5.474 tok/s | Gemini 2.5 Flash has the higher measured throughput. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Gemini 2.5 Flash0.50 s | GPT-5.4151.79 s | Gemini 2.5 Flash reaches the first token sooner. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Gemini 2.5 Flash1M | GPT-5.41.05M | GPT-5.4 lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic17 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash | GPT-5.4 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| τ²-bench resultsSource | 14.9% | 87.1% | GPT-5.4 leads |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | — | 75.1% | Not comparable |
| CyberGymSource | — | 79.0% | Not comparable |
| BrowseCompSource | — | 82.7% | Not comparable |
| OSWorld-VerifiedSource | — | 75% | Not comparable |
| MCP AtlasSource | — | 70.6% | Not comparable |
| ToolathlonSource | — | 54.6% | Not comparable |
| Claw-EvalSource | — | 60.3% | Not comparable |
| DeepSearchQASource | — | 73.6% | Not comparable |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | — | 41.1% | Not comparable |
| APEX-Agents-AASource | — | 33.3% | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | — | 44.7% | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | — | 1395 | Not comparable |
| Gert LabsSource | — | 64.89% | Not comparable |
| ResearchClawBenchSource | — | 15.3% | Not comparable |
| JobBenchSource | — | 38.9% | Not comparable |
| ExploitGymSource | — | 6.0% | Not comparable |
Coding6 benchmarks
Reasoning2 benchmarks
Knowledge13 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash | GPT-5.4 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 14.1% | 51.4% | GPT-5.4 leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 68.3% | 92.0% | GPT-5.4 leads |
| AA-HLESource | 5.1% | 41.6% | GPT-5.4 leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | -42.0% | 5.7% | GPT-5.4 leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 26.5% | 50.0% | GPT-5.4 leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 93.3% | 88.6% | GPT-5.4 leads |
| GPQASource | — | 92.8% | Not comparable |
| HLESource | — | 52.1% | Not comparable |
| HLE w/o toolsSource | — | 39.8% | Not comparable |
| GPQA-DSource | — | 92.8% | Not comparable |
| HealthBench HardSource | — | 40.1% | Not comparable |
| MedXpertQA (Text)Source | — | 59.6% | Not comparable |
| HealthBench ProfessionalSource | — | 48.1% | Not comparable |
MathGPT-5.4 wins2 benchmarks
Multimodal11 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash | GPT-5.4 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-MMMU-ProSource | 65.5% | 78.4% | GPT-5.4 leads |
| Design Arena WebsiteSource | 1148 | 1252 | GPT-5.4 leads |
| MMMU-ProSource | — | 81.2% | Not comparable |
| OfficeQA ProSource | — | 53.2% | Not comparable |
| MMMU-Pro w/ PythonSource | — | 82.1% | Not comparable |
| CharXivSource | — | 82.8% | Not comparable |
| ERQASource | — | 65.4% | Not comparable |
| SimpleVQASource | — | 61.1% | Not comparable |
| ScreenSpot ProSource | — | 85.4% | Not comparable |
| ZeroBenchSource | — | 41.0% | Not comparable |
| MedXpertQA (MM)Source | — | 77.1% | Not comparable |
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash | GPT-5.4 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | 39.0% | 73.9% | GPT-5.4 leads |
Frequently Asked Questions (2)
Which is better, Gemini 2.5 Flash or GPT-5.4?
GPT-5.4 is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 74.24 to 48.09. The biggest single separator in this matchup is FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3), where the scores are 4.844% and 47.600%.
Which is better for math, Gemini 2.5 Flash or GPT-5.4?
GPT-5.4 has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 42.5 versus 4.7. Inside this category, FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3) is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Related Comparisons
Explore More
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.