Model comparison
Gemini 2.5 Pro vs GPT-5.4
Head-to-head evidence from 23 shared benchmark results across 7 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: Gemini 2.5 Pro #70 (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 Pro and GPT-5.4 share 23 comparable benchmark results. 3 of 8 categories are comparable. 1 result is unique to Gemini 2.5 Pro; 29 to GPT-5.4.
Updated July 20, 2026- Shared results
- 23
- Gemini 2.5 Pro only
- 1
- GPT-5.4 only
- 29
- Comparable categories
- 3 / 8
Pick GPT-5.4 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Gemini 2.5 Pro only becomes the better choice if coding is the priority or you want the cheaper token bill.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 23 shared benchmark results across 7 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 is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 74.24 to 57.25. 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 11.6. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3), 14.138% to 47.600%. Gemini 2.5 Pro does hit back in coding, so the answer changes if that is the part of the workload you care about most.
GPT-5.4 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $2.50 input / $15.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $1.25 input / $10.00 output per 1M tokens for Gemini 2.5 Pro. GPT-5.4 is the reasoning model in the pair, while Gemini 2.5 Pro 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 Pro.
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 Pro | Δ | GPT-5.4 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Math | Gemini 2.5 Pro11.6 | Margin→ 30.9 | GPT-5.442.5 |
| Knowledge | Gemini 2.5 Pro27.4 | Margin→ 30.2 | GPT-5.457.6 |
| Coding | Gemini 2.5 Pro63.8 | Margin← 6.1 | GPT-5.457.7 |
| Agentic | Gemini 2.5 ProNot measured | MarginNo overlap | GPT-5.477.2 |
| Multimodal | Gemini 2.5 ProNot 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 14.138%B 47.600%Winner: GPT-5.4Δ 33.5FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3): Gemini 2.5 Pro scored 14.138%; GPT-5.4 scored 47.600%. GPT-5.4 wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
HLE
KnowledgeA 18.8%B 52.1%Winner: GPT-5.4Δ 33.3HLE: Gemini 2.5 Pro scored 18.8%; GPT-5.4 scored 52.1%. 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 Pro scored 4.167%; GPT-5.4 scored 27.100%. GPT-5.4 wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
GPQA
KnowledgeA 83%B 92.8%Winner: GPT-5.4Δ 9.8GPQA: Gemini 2.5 Pro scored 83%; GPT-5.4 scored 92.8%. 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 Pro | GPT-5.4 | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Gemini 2.5 Pro$1.25 input / $10 output | GPT-5.4$2.5 input / $15 output | Gemini 2.5 Pro has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Gemini 2.5 Pro117 tok/s | GPT-5.474 tok/s | Gemini 2.5 Pro has the higher measured throughput. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Gemini 2.5 Pro21.19 s | GPT-5.4151.79 s | Gemini 2.5 Pro reaches the first token sooner. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Gemini 2.5 Pro1M | GPT-5.41.05M | GPT-5.4 lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic17 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Pro | GPT-5.4 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Agentic IndexSource | 7.1% | 41.1% | GPT-5.4 leads |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | 54.1% | 87.1% | GPT-5.4 leads |
| Gert LabsSource | 42.01% | 64.89% | GPT-5.4 leads |
| GDPval-AASource | 8.3% | 44.7% | GPT-5.4 leads |
| GDPval-AASource | 665 | 1395 | 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 |
| APEX-Agents-AASource | — | 33.3% | Not comparable |
| ResearchClawBenchSource | — | 15.3% | Not comparable |
| JobBenchSource | — | 38.9% | Not comparable |
| ExploitGymSource | — | 6.0% | Not comparable |
CodingGemini 2.5 Pro wins7 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Pro | GPT-5.4 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench VerifiedSource | 63.8% | — | Not comparable |
| Vibe Code BenchSource | 0.40% | 67.42% | GPT-5.4 leads |
| AA Coding IndexSource | 33.3% | 71.0% | GPT-5.4 leads |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 42.8% | 56.6% | GPT-5.4 leads |
| LiveCodeBench ProSource | — | 87.5% | Not comparable |
| SWE-bench ProSource | — | 57.7% | Not comparable |
| React Native EvalsSource | — | 85.3% | Not comparable |
Reasoning2 benchmarks
KnowledgeGPT-5.4 wins13 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Pro | GPT-5.4 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQASource | 83% | 92.8% | GPT-5.4 leads |
| HLESource | 18.8% | 52.1% | GPT-5.4 leads |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 25.8% | 51.4% | GPT-5.4 leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 84.4% | 92.0% | GPT-5.4 leads |
| AA-HLESource | 21.1% | 41.6% | GPT-5.4 leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | -14.3% | 5.7% | GPT-5.4 leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 39.0% | 50.0% | GPT-5.4 leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 87.4% | 88.6% | Gemini 2.5 Pro leads |
| 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 Pro | GPT-5.4 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-MMMU-ProSource | 74.9% | 78.4% | GPT-5.4 leads |
| Design Arena WebsiteSource | 1199 | 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 Pro | GPT-5.4 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | 48.7% | 73.9% | GPT-5.4 leads |
Frequently Asked Questions (4)
Which is better, Gemini 2.5 Pro or GPT-5.4?
GPT-5.4 is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 74.24 to 57.25. The biggest single separator in this matchup is FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3), where the scores are 14.138% and 47.600%.
Which is better for knowledge tasks, Gemini 2.5 Pro or GPT-5.4?
GPT-5.4 has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 57.6 versus 27.4. Inside this category, HLE is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for coding, Gemini 2.5 Pro or GPT-5.4?
Gemini 2.5 Pro has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 63.8 versus 57.7. Inside this category, Vibe Code Bench is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for math, Gemini 2.5 Pro or GPT-5.4?
GPT-5.4 has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 42.5 versus 11.6. 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.