Updated October 29, 2026. Rank says GPT-5.4 mini is ahead. Price, access, and your workload can each overturn that. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty.
GPT-5.4 mini has the higher public score estimate, 52.98 versus 48.7, but the 90% score intervals overlap. Treat that as a lead, not a settled winner. 6 results are shared. Category rows resting on Estimated evidence or different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.
Recommendations appear only when a shared evidence basis or an explicit operating constraint supports the call. Secondary and unsupported use cases stay disclosed below the initial list.
Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks
GPT-5.4 mini
GPT-5.4 mini has the higher public coding point estimate, 35.3 to 22.7, with Supported evidence for both models. The conditional ranges do not establish rank confidence.
Prompts that approach the documented context limit
Gemini 2.5 Pro
Gemini 2.5 Pro has the larger documented context window.
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
GPT-5.4 mini
GPT-5.4 mini has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
GPT-5.4 mini
GPT-5.4 mini has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
GPT-5.4 mini
GPT-5.4 mini has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion
Not enough matched evidence
Gemini 2.5 Pro is scored on Estimated evidence for agentic, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like.
Choose a job from the LLM Selector's task catalog to see the category row it rests on, under the same basis rules as the table below. A directional row stays directional; choosing a job never creates a winner.
The same task catalog as the LLM Selector. Each job names the evidence surface it rests on; nothing here adds a new score.
Like-for-like · BenchAlign v5.8
GPT-5.4 mini has the higher coding point estimate. Conditional score ranges do not establish rank confidence.
Coding scores combine specific tasks and setups. Match the editor, harness, and effort to your workflow.
Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results present for only one model describe coverage, not superiority.
2 categories rest on Estimated evidence or different evidence sets. Those rows remain visible for coverage context but do not name a winner.
Only shared public evidence is shown. Sparse evidence stays a ruled list rather than being closed into a radar shape.
Too few matched category axes support a radar. The ruled list below shows only shared benchmark results; positions use each benchmark’s normalized display scale when available.
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Math
Normalized gap 26.7HLEKnowledge
Normalized gap 22.7FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Math
Normalized gap 9.8GPQAKnowledge
Normalized gap 5.0Each row shows the public-lane category score for both models: the BenchAlign v5.8 lane for agentic, coding, and knowledge, and the weighted public rows elsewhere, with the same rank each model page reports. A row is like-for-like only when both scores rest on Supported evidence or the same weighted set. Directional and not-comparable rows remain visible, but they never receive a winner.
| Category | Gemini 2.5 Pro | GPT-5.4 mini | Basis | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | 22.7Supported · #126/156 | 35.3Supported · #80/156 | Like-for-likeBenchAlign v5.8 lane · 3 vs 5 public rows | GPT-5.4 mini leads · intervals overlap |
| Knowledge | 44.5Supported · #99/179 | 50.5Supported · #77/179 | Like-for-likeBenchAlign v5.8 lane · 2 vs 5 public rows | GPT-5.4 mini leads · intervals overlap |
| Agentic | 29.0Estimated · #111/135 | 36.4Supported · #84/135 | Directional onlyBenchAlign v5.8 lane · 1 vs 6 public rows | Directional only |
| Instruction following | 57.8#90/157 | 89.9#30/157 | Directional onlyProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Directional only |
| Reasoning | 72.4Unranked · 2 rankable rows | 43.7Unranked · 4 rankable rows | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Multimodal | 75.2Unranked · 1 rankable row | 74.0#29/58 | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Multilingual | Not ranked | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Math | 36.9Unranked · 3 rankable rows | 55.9Unranked · 2 rankable rows | Not comparableProvisional lane · 2 vs 2 weighted rows | Not comparable |
Ranks count the models scored in each category’s lane, so the agentic, coding, and knowledge denominators (BenchAlign v5.8) differ from the provisional-lane categories. Unranked scores sit on the provisional lane’s scale but never name a winner. Like-for-like rows within 0.5 points read as a practical tie.
Three fixed token mixes turn per-token rates into comparable decisions. Each scenario states context fit and whether cached input had to fall back to the published list-input rate.
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
GPT-5.4 mini has the lower modeled cost
Costs use the listed standard API rates.
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
GPT-5.4 mini has the lower modeled cost
Costs use the listed standard API rates.
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
GPT-5.4 mini has the lower modeled cost
Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Sourced differences are shown directly. Missing facts stay explicit instead of being inferred from a model name or family.
Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.
Gemini 2.5 Pro
GPT-5.4 mini
Gemini 2.5 Pro
gemini-2.5-pro
Google Gemini API pricingGPT-5.4 mini
gpt-5.4-mini
OpenAI GPT-5.4 mini model documentationA missing cached-input rate falls back to the listed input rate only in the stated workload estimate.
Gemini 2.5 Pro
$0.125 per 1M cached input tokens
Google Gemini API pricingGPT-5.4 mini
$0.075 per 1M cached input tokens
OpenAI pricingGemini 2.5 Pro
Not sourced
GPT-5.4 mini
text, image
OpenAI model catalogGemini 2.5 Pro
Not sourced
GPT-5.4 mini
Gemini 2.5 Pro
Not sourced
GPT-5.4 mini
Generally Available · OpenAI Responses API
OpenAI model catalogGemini 2.5 Pro
Non-Reasoning
GPT-5.4 mini
Reasoning
Gemini 2.5 Pro
Proprietary
GPT-5.4 mini
Proprietary
Gemini 2.5 Pro
Proprietary
GPT-5.4 mini
Proprietary
Gemini 2.5 Pro
2025-03-01
GPT-5.4 mini
2026-03-17
GPT-5.4 mini has the higher public score estimate, 52.98 versus 48.7, but the 90% score intervals overlap. The higher estimate is not a decisive winner because the uncertainty ranges overlap.
GPT-5.4 mini has the higher public coding point estimate, 35.3 to 22.7, with Supported evidence for both models. The conditional ranges do not establish rank confidence.
GPT-5.4 mini scores higher for agentic tasks on the public lane, 36.4 to 29. Gemini 2.5 Pro is scored on Estimated evidence for agentic tasks, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like. BenchLM does not name a winner for agentic tasks from a directional reading; read the shared benchmark rows directly and test the models on the same task set.
For the stated presets, chat costs $0.00625 on Gemini 2.5 Pro and $0.003 on GPT-5.4 mini; repository review costs $0.0925 and $0.051; the cache-heavy agent loop costs $0.15 and $0.075. Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Gemini 2.5 Pro has the larger documented context window: 1M, compared with 400K.
The full public result ledger is available for audit without forcing a wide desktop table onto a phone.
Gert Labs
Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Not directly comparable
OSWorld-Verified
Not directly comparable
MCP Atlas
Not directly comparable
Toolathlon
Not directly comparable
τ²-bench results
Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals)
Not directly comparable
SWE-bench Verified
Not directly comparable
Vibe Code Bench
Shared sourceGPT-5.4 mini leads this result
SWE-bench (Vals)
GPT-5.4 mini leads this result
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Not directly comparable
FrontierCode 1.1 Main
Not directly comparable
LiveCodeBench (Vals)
Not directly comparable
GPQA
GPT-5.4 mini leads this result
HLE
GPT-5.4 mini leads this result
HLE w/o tools
Not directly comparable
GPQA Diamond (Vals)
Not directly comparable
MMLU-Pro (Vals)
Not directly comparable
AIME 2024
Not directly comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)
Shared sourceGPT-5.4 mini leads this result
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)
Shared sourceGPT-5.4 mini leads this result
One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.
Read a sample issueJoin 6,100+ subscribers.
Last updated October 29, 2026
