Model comparison
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite vs GPT-5.4
Head-to-head evidence from 17 shared benchmark results across 5 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite unranked (Not scored); GPT-5.4 #8 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite and GPT-5.4 share 17 comparable benchmark results. 2 of 8 categories are comparable. 4 results are unique to Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite; 35 to GPT-5.4.
Updated July 21, 2026- Shared results
- 17
- Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite only
- 4
- GPT-5.4 only
- 35
- Comparable categories
- 2 / 8
Treat this as a split decision. Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite makes more sense if you want the cheaper token bill; GPT-5.4 is the better fit if agentic is the priority or you need the larger 1.05M context window.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 17 shared benchmark results across 5 evidence categories; 2 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.
Why this result
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite and GPT-5.4 finish on the same BenchAlign overall score, so this is less about a single winner and more about where the edge shows up. The BenchAlign headline says tie; the benchmark table is where the real choice happens.
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 3.5 Flash-Lite. That is roughly 6.0x on output cost alone. GPT-5.4 gives you the larger context window at 1.05M, compared with 1M for Gemini 3.5 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 3.5 Flash-Lite | Δ | GPT-5.4 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agentic | Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite63.4 | Margin→ 13.8 | GPT-5.477.2 |
| Coding | Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite54.2 | Margin→ 3.5 | GPT-5.457.7 |
| Reasoning | Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite72.2 | MarginNo overlap | GPT-5.4Not measured |
| Knowledge | Gemini 3.5 Flash-LiteNot measured | MarginNo overlap | GPT-5.457.6 |
| Math | Gemini 3.5 Flash-LiteNot measured | MarginNo overlap | GPT-5.442.5 |
| Multimodal | Gemini 3.5 Flash-LiteNot measured | MarginNo overlap | GPT-5.473.2 |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
Terminal-Bench 2.0
AgenticA 54%B 75.1%Winner: GPT-5.4Δ 21.1Terminal-Bench 2.0: Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite scored 54%; GPT-5.4 scored 75.1%. GPT-5.4 wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
SWE-bench Pro
CodingA 54.2%B 57.7%Winner: GPT-5.4Δ 3.5SWE-bench Pro: Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite scored 54.2%; GPT-5.4 scored 57.7%. GPT-5.4 wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
OSWorld-Verified
AgenticA 74%B 75%Winner: GPT-5.4Δ 1OSWorld-Verified: Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite scored 74%; GPT-5.4 scored 75%. 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 3.5 Flash-Lite | GPT-5.4 | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite$0.3 input / $2.5 output | GPT-5.4$2.5 input / $15 output | Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Gemini 3.5 Flash-LiteNot available | GPT-5.474 tok/s | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Gemini 3.5 Flash-LiteNot available | GPT-5.4151.79 s | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite1M | GPT-5.41.05M | GPT-5.4 lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
AgenticGPT-5.4 wins19 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite | GPT-5.4 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 54% | 75.1% | GPT-5.4 leads |
| OSWorld-VerifiedSource | 74% | 75% | GPT-5.4 leads |
| GDPval-AASource | 1140 | 1395 | GPT-5.4 leads |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | 26.8% | 41.1% | GPT-5.4 leads |
| GDPval-AASource | 32.0% | 44.7% | GPT-5.4 leads |
| AA BriefcaseSource | 634 | — | Not comparable |
| AA Tau3 BankingSource | 16.5% | — | Not comparable |
| CyberGymSource | — | 79.0% | Not comparable |
| BrowseCompSource | — | 82.7% | Not comparable |
| MCP AtlasSource | — | 70.6% | Not comparable |
| ToolathlonSource | — | 54.6% | Not comparable |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | — | 87.1% | Not comparable |
| Claw-EvalSource | — | 60.3% | Not comparable |
| DeepSearchQASource | — | 73.6% | Not comparable |
| APEX-Agents-AASource | — | 33.3% | Not comparable |
| Gert LabsSource | — | 64.89% | Not comparable |
| ResearchClawBenchSource | — | 15.3% | Not comparable |
| JobBenchSource | — | 38.9% | Not comparable |
| ExploitGymSource | — | 6.0% | Not comparable |
CodingGPT-5.4 wins7 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite | GPT-5.4 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 54.0% | — | Not comparable |
| SWE-bench ProSource | 54.2% | 57.7% | GPT-5.4 leads |
| AA Coding IndexSource | 49.3% | 71.0% | GPT-5.4 leads |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 40.9% | 56.6% | GPT-5.4 leads |
| LiveCodeBench ProSource | — | 87.5% | Not comparable |
| React Native EvalsSource | — | 85.3% | Not comparable |
| Vibe Code BenchSource | — | 67.42% | Not comparable |
Reasoning3 benchmarks
Knowledge13 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite | GPT-5.4 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 36.5% | 51.4% | GPT-5.4 leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 83.8% | 92.0% | GPT-5.4 leads |
| AA-HLESource | 17.5% | 41.6% | GPT-5.4 leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | 6.9% | 5.7% | Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 30.3% | 50.0% | GPT-5.4 leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 33.5% | 88.6% | Gemini 3.5 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
Multimodal11 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite | GPT-5.4 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-MMMU-ProSource | 79.0% | 78.4% | Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite 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 |
| Design Arena WebsiteSource | — | 1250 | Not comparable |
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite | GPT-5.4 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | — | 73.9% | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (3)
Which is better, Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite or GPT-5.4?
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite and GPT-5.4 are tied on the BenchAlign overall score, so the right pick depends on which category matters most for your use case.
Which is better for coding, Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite or GPT-5.4?
GPT-5.4 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 57.7 versus 54.2. Inside this category, AA Coding Index is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for agentic tasks, Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite or GPT-5.4?
GPT-5.4 has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 77.2 versus 63.4. Inside this category, GDPval-AA 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.