Skip to main content
Radar

Five or fewer confirmed AI changes, with original sources, on mornings when something changed.A free source-linked morning brief.

See the free Radar Brief
BenchLM
Google logo
Model A
Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite

Google

51.18/100

Supported · Public rank #134

90% interval 24.9–77.5

Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite vs GPT-5.4

Updated September 3, 2026. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. They are not guarantees for a specific workload.

OpenAI logo
Model B
GPT-5.4

OpenAI

72.89/100

Supported · Public rank #20

90% interval 69.1–76.7

Decision reading

GPT-5.4 has the higher public score estimate, 72.89 versus 51.18, but the 90% score intervals overlap. Treat that as a lead, not a settled winner.

3 results are shared. Category rows based on different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.

Which one for your work

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.

  • Long documents

    Prompts that approach the documented context limit

    GPT-5.4

    GPT-5.4 has the larger documented context window.

    Confidence: documented

  • Chat turn cost

    1K fresh input + 500 output tokens

    Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite

    Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.

    Confidence: listed-rates

  • Cache-heavy agent loop cost

    200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens

    Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite

    Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.

    Confidence: listed-rates

Show secondary and unsupported calls

  • Repository review cost

    50K fresh input + 3K output tokens

    Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite

    Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.

    Confidence: listed-rates

  • Coding work

    Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks

    Not enough matched evidence

    No shared weighted benchmark basis supports a winner.

    Confidence: limited

  • Agentic work

    Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion

    Not enough matched evidence

    No shared weighted benchmark basis supports a winner.

    Confidence: limited

What is actually comparable

Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results present for only one model describe coverage, not superiority.

Shared results
3
Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite only
0
GPT-5.4 only
34
Like-for-like categories
0 / 8

1 category uses different evidence sets. Those rows remain visible for coverage context but do not name a winner.

Category results, on a stated basis

Each row states whether both averages use the same weighted benchmark set. Directional and not-comparable rows remain visible, but they never receive a winner in this template.

Multimodal

Directional only
Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite
73.2
GPT-5.4
73.2
Weighted basis
1 vs 3 rows
Reading
Directional only

Agentic

Not comparable
Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite
Not measured
GPT-5.4
77.2
Weighted basis
0 vs 3 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Coding

Not comparable
Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite
Not measured
GPT-5.4
57.7
Weighted basis
0 vs 1 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Reasoning

Not comparable
Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite
Not measured
GPT-5.4
74.0
Weighted basis
0 vs 1 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Knowledge

Not comparable
Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite
Not measured
GPT-5.4
57.6
Weighted basis
0 vs 2 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Math

Not comparable
Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite
Not measured
GPT-5.4
42.5
Weighted basis
0 vs 2 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multilingual

Not comparable
Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite
Not measured
GPT-5.4
Not measured
Weighted basis
0 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Instruction following

Not comparable
Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite
Not measured
GPT-5.4
Not measured
Weighted basis
0 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Shape of the matched evidence

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.

What each workload costs

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.

Chat turn

1K fresh input + 500 output tokens

Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite
$0.001
Fits in one request
GPT-5.4
$0.01
Fits in one request

Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite has the lower modeled cost

Costs use the listed standard API rates.

Repository review

50K fresh input + 3K output tokens

Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite
$0.017
Fits in one request
GPT-5.4
$0.17
Fits in one request

Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite has the lower modeled cost

Costs use the listed standard API rates.

Cache-heavy agent loop

200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens

Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite
$0.025
Fits in one request
GPT-5.4
$0.25
Fits in one request

Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite has the lower modeled cost

Costs use the listed standard API rates.

Specification differences

Sourced differences are shown directly. Missing facts stay explicit instead of being inferred from a model name or family.

Cached-input rate

A missing cached-input rate falls back to the listed input rate only in the stated workload estimate.

Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite

$0.025 per 1M cached input tokens

Google Gemini API pricing

GPT-5.4

$0.25 per 1M cached input tokens

OpenAI pricing

Documented inputs

Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite

Not sourced

GPT-5.4

Not sourced

Documented outputs

Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite

Not sourced

GPT-5.4

Not sourced

Provider availability

Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite

Not sourced

GPT-5.4

Not sourced

Reasoning profile

Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite

Non-Reasoning

GPT-5.4

Reasoning

Weight access

Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite

Proprietary

GPT-5.4

Proprietary

License

Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite

Proprietary

GPT-5.4

Proprietary

Release date

Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite

2026-03-03

GPT-5.4

2026-03-05

If you already use one of these models
Deployment change
The models list different providers, so authentication, endpoint behavior, limits, and feature support may change.
Quality signal
GPT-5.4 has the higher public score estimate, 72.89 versus 51.18, but the 90% score intervals overlap.
Workload cost
Repository review: $0.017 vs $0.17. Cache-heavy agent loop: $0.025 vs $0.25.
Context tradeoff
GPT-5.4 has the larger documented window (1.05M).

Run the same representative tasks against both endpoints before changing production traffic.

Benchmark evidence

The full public result ledger is available for audit without forcing a wide desktop table onto a phone.

Browse raw public benchmark evidence37 rows

Agentic

  • Gert Labs

    Shared source
    Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite38.46%
    GPT-5.464.89%

    GPT-5.4 leads this result

  • Terminal-Bench 2.0

    Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite—
    GPT-5.475.1%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • CyberGym

    Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite—
    GPT-5.479.0%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • BrowseComp

    Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite—
    GPT-5.482.7%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • OSWorld-Verified

    Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite—
    GPT-5.475%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • MCP Atlas

    Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite—
    GPT-5.470.6%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • Toolathlon

    Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite—
    GPT-5.454.6%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • τ²-bench results

    Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite—
    GPT-5.498.9%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • Claw-Eval

    Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite—
    GPT-5.460.3%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • DeepSearchQA

    Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite—
    GPT-5.473.6%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • ResearchClawBench

    Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite—
    GPT-5.415.3%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • JobBench

    Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite—
    GPT-5.438.9%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • ExploitGym

    Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite—
    GPT-5.46.0%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Coding

  • Vibe Code Bench

    Shared source
    Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite0.00%
    GPT-5.467.42%

    GPT-5.4 leads this result

  • LiveCodeBench Pro

    Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite—
    GPT-5.487.5%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • SWE-bench Pro

    Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite—
    GPT-5.457.7%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • React Native Evals

    Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite—
    GPT-5.485.3%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Reasoning

  • ARC-AGI-2

    Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite—
    GPT-5.474.0%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • ARC-AGI-3

    Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite—
    GPT-5.40.2%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Knowledge

  • GPQA

    Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite—
    GPT-5.492.8%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • HLE

    Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite—
    GPT-5.452.1%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • HLE w/o tools

    Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite—
    GPT-5.439.8%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • GPQA-D

    Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite—
    GPT-5.492.8%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • HealthBench Hard

    Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite—
    GPT-5.440.1%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • MedXpertQA (Text)

    Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite—
    GPT-5.459.6%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • HealthBench Professional

    Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite—
    GPT-5.448.1%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Math

  • FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)

    Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite—
    GPT-5.447.600%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)

    Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite—
    GPT-5.427.100%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Multimodal

  • CharXiv

    Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite73.2%
    Source
    GPT-5.482.8%
    Source

    GPT-5.4 leads this result

  • MMMU-Pro

    Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite—
    GPT-5.481.2%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • OfficeQA Pro

    Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite—
    GPT-5.453.2%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • MMMU-Pro w/ Python

    Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite—
    GPT-5.482.1%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • ERQA

    Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite—
    GPT-5.465.4%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • SimpleVQA

    Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite—
    GPT-5.461.1%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • ScreenSpot Pro

    Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite—
    GPT-5.485.4%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • ZeroBench

    Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite—
    GPT-5.441.0%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • MedXpertQA (MM)

    Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite—
    GPT-5.477.1%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Frequently asked questions

Which is better, Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite or GPT-5.4?

GPT-5.4 has the higher public score estimate, 72.89 versus 51.18, but the 90% score intervals overlap. The higher estimate is not a decisive winner because the uncertainty ranges overlap.

Which is better for coding, Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite or GPT-5.4?

The published evidence does not provide a shared weighted coding basis for both models, so BenchLM does not name a coding winner.

Which is better for agentic tasks, Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite or GPT-5.4?

The published evidence does not provide a shared weighted agentic tasks basis for both models, so BenchLM does not name a agentic tasks winner.

Which costs less, Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite or GPT-5.4?

For the stated presets, chat costs $0.001 on Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite and $0.01 on GPT-5.4; repository review costs $0.017 and $0.17; the cache-heavy agent loop costs $0.025 and $0.25. Costs use the listed standard API rates.

Which has the larger context window, Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite or GPT-5.4?

GPT-5.4 has the larger documented context window: 1.05M, compared with 1M.

Related comparisons

Compare API pricing Read the methodology Open the model selector

Last updated September 3, 2026

Watch Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite vs GPT-5.4

One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.

Read a sample issue

Join 2,000+ readers.