Model comparison
Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite vs GPT-5.4
Head-to-head evidence from 20 shared benchmark results across 6 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite #111 (Supported); GPT-5.4 #8 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite and GPT-5.4 share 20 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 0 results are unique to Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite; 32 to GPT-5.4.
Updated July 20, 2026- Shared results
- 20
- Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite only
- 0
- GPT-5.4 only
- 32
- Comparable categories
- 1 / 8
Pick GPT-5.4 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite 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 20 shared benchmark results across 6 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 50.83. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
GPT-5.4 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $2.50 input / $15.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.25 input / $1.50 output per 1M tokens for Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite. That is roughly 10.0x on output cost alone. GPT-5.4 is the reasoning model in the pair, while Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite 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 3.1 Flash-Lite.
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 3.1 Flash-Lite | Δ | GPT-5.4 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Multimodal | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite73.2 | MarginTie | GPT-5.473.2 |
| Agentic | Gemini 3.1 Flash-LiteNot measured | MarginNo overlap | GPT-5.477.2 |
| Coding | Gemini 3.1 Flash-LiteNot measured | MarginNo overlap | GPT-5.457.7 |
| Knowledge | Gemini 3.1 Flash-LiteNot measured | MarginNo overlap | GPT-5.457.6 |
| Math | Gemini 3.1 Flash-LiteNot measured | MarginNo overlap | GPT-5.442.5 |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
CharXiv
MultimodalA 73.2%B 82.8%Winner: GPT-5.4Δ 9.6CharXiv: Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite scored 73.2%; GPT-5.4 scored 82.8%. 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 3.1 Flash-Lite | GPT-5.4 | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite$0.25 input / $1.5 output | GPT-5.4$2.5 input / $15 output | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite205 tok/s | GPT-5.474 tok/s | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite has the higher measured throughput. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite7.50 s | GPT-5.4151.79 s | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite reaches the first token sooner. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite1M | GPT-5.41.05M | GPT-5.4 lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic17 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite | GPT-5.4 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Agentic IndexSource | 6.2% | 41.1% | GPT-5.4 leads |
| APEX-Agents-AASource | 12.2% | 33.3% | GPT-5.4 leads |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | 31.3% | 87.1% | GPT-5.4 leads |
| GDPval-AASource | 7.1% | 44.7% | GPT-5.4 leads |
| GDPval-AASource | 642 | 1395 | GPT-5.4 leads |
| Gert LabsSource | 38.46% | 64.89% | 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 |
| ResearchClawBenchSource | — | 15.3% | Not comparable |
| JobBenchSource | — | 38.9% | Not comparable |
| ExploitGymSource | — | 6.0% | Not comparable |
Coding6 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite | GPT-5.4 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vibe Code BenchSource | 0.00% | 67.42% | GPT-5.4 leads |
| AA Coding IndexSource | 34.7% | 71.0% | GPT-5.4 leads |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 41.9% | 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
Knowledge13 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite | GPT-5.4 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 25.0% | 51.4% | GPT-5.4 leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 82.2% | 92.0% | GPT-5.4 leads |
| AA-HLESource | 16.2% | 41.6% | GPT-5.4 leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | -15.5% | 5.7% | GPT-5.4 leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 36.4% | 50.0% | GPT-5.4 leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 81.6% | 88.6% | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite 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 |
Math2 benchmarks
MultimodalTie11 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite | GPT-5.4 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| CharXivSource | 73.2% | 82.8% | GPT-5.4 leads |
| AA-MMMU-ProSource | 75.5% | 78.4% | GPT-5.4 leads |
| MMMU-ProSource | — | 81.2% | Not comparable |
| OfficeQA ProSource | — | 53.2% | Not comparable |
| MMMU-Pro w/ PythonSource | — | 82.1% | 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 |
| Design Arena WebsiteSource | — | 1252 | Not comparable |
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite | GPT-5.4 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | 77.2% | 73.9% | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite leads |
Frequently Asked Questions (2)
Which is better, Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite or GPT-5.4?
GPT-5.4 is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 74.24 to 50.83. The biggest single separator in this matchup is CharXiv, where the scores are 73.2% and 82.8%.
Which is better for multimodal and grounded tasks, Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite or GPT-5.4?
Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite and GPT-5.4 are effectively tied for multimodal and grounded tasks here, both landing at 73.2 on average.
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.