Coding
Like-for-like- Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite
- 43.6
- Supported · #121/183
- GPT-5.4 nano
- 37.5
- Supported · #150/183
- Basis
- BenchAlign lane · 4 vs 3 public rows
- Reading
- Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite leads · intervals overlap
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite vs GPT-5.4 nano
Updated September 4, 2026. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. They are not guarantees for a specific workload.
Decision reading
GPT-5.4 nano has the higher public score estimate, 62.19 versus 60.5, but the 90% score intervals overlap. Treat that as a lead, not a settled winner.
7 results are shared. Category rows resting on Estimated evidence or different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.
Share or export
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.
Coding work
Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite leads on the public coding lane, 43.6 to 37.5, with Supported evidence for both models, although the 90% intervals overlap.
Confidence: limited
Long documents
Prompts that approach the documented context limit
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite has the larger documented context window.
Confidence: documented
Chat turn cost
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
GPT-5.4 nano
GPT-5.4 nano 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
Cache-heavy agent loop cost
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
GPT-5.4 nano
GPT-5.4 nano has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Confidence: listed-rates
Repository review cost
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
GPT-5.4 nano
GPT-5.4 nano has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Confidence: listed-rates
Agentic work
Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion
Not enough matched evidence
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite is scored on Estimated evidence for agentic, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like.
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.
3 Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite only
7 Shared
11 GPT-5.4 nano only
- Shared results
- 7
- Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite only
- 3
- GPT-5.4 nano only
- 11
- Like-for-like categories
- 2 / 8
2 categories rest on Estimated evidence or different evidence sets. Those rows remain visible for coverage context but do not name a winner.
Category results, on a stated basis
Each row shows the public-lane category score for both models: the BenchAlign 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.
Knowledge
Like-for-like- Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite
- 53.0
- Supported · #71/181
- GPT-5.4 nano
- 48.8
- Supported · #97/181
- Basis
- BenchAlign lane · 2 vs 5 public rows
- Reading
- Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite leads · intervals overlap
Agentic
Directional only- Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite
- 43.4
- Estimated · #104/151
- GPT-5.4 nano
- 37.3
- Supported · #127/151
- Basis
- BenchAlign lane · 3 vs 6 public rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Multimodal
Directional only- Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite
- 76.1
- #16/48
- GPT-5.4 nano
- 23.8
- #45/48
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Reasoning
Not comparable- Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite
- 60.8
- Unranked · 3 rankable rows
- GPT-5.4 nano
- 72.8
- Unranked · 2 rankable rows
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 1 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Math
Not comparable- Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite
- Not ranked
- GPT-5.4 nano
- 43.9
- Unranked · 2 rankable rows
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 2 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multilingual
Not comparable- Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite
- Not ranked
- GPT-5.4 nano
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Instruction following
Not comparable- Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite
- Not ranked
- GPT-5.4 nano
- 92.9
- #9/120
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
| Category | Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite | GPT-5.4 nano | Basis | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | 43.6Supported · #121/183 | 37.5Supported · #150/183 | Like-for-likeBenchAlign lane · 4 vs 3 public rows | Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite leads · intervals overlap |
| Knowledge | 53.0Supported · #71/181 | 48.8Supported · #97/181 | Like-for-likeBenchAlign lane · 2 vs 5 public rows | Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite leads · intervals overlap |
| Agentic | 43.4Estimated · #104/151 | 37.3Supported · #127/151 | Directional onlyBenchAlign lane · 3 vs 6 public rows | Directional only |
| Multimodal | 76.1#16/48 | 23.8#45/48 | Directional onlyProvisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows | Directional only |
| Reasoning | 60.8Unranked · 3 rankable rows | 72.8Unranked · 2 rankable rows | Not comparableProvisional lane · 1 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Math | Not ranked | 43.9Unranked · 2 rankable rows | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 2 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Multilingual | Not ranked | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Instruction following | Not ranked | 92.9#9/120 | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
Ranks count the models scored in each category’s lane, so the agentic, coding, and knowledge denominators (BenchAlign) differ from the provisional-lane categories. Unranked scores sit on the lane’s scale but never name a winner. Like-for-like rows within 0.5 points read as a practical tie.
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.
OSWorld-Verified
Agentic
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite: 74%GPT-5.4 nano: 39%Normalized gap 35.0Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite source GPT-5.4 nano sourceMMLU-Pro (Vals)
Knowledge
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite: 85.8%GPT-5.4 nano: 77.2%Normalized gap 8.6Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite source GPT-5.4 nano sourceTerminal-Bench 2.0
Agentic
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite: 54%GPT-5.4 nano: 46.3%Normalized gap 7.7Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite source GPT-5.4 nano sourceLiveCodeBench (Vals)
Coding
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite: 79.0%GPT-5.4 nano: 84.0%Normalized gap 5.0Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite source GPT-5.4 nano source
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 3.5 Flash-Lite
- $0.00155
- Fits in one request
- GPT-5.4 nano
- $0.00082
- Fits in one request
GPT-5.4 nano has the lower modeled cost
Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Repository review
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
- Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite
- $0.0225
- Fits in one request
- GPT-5.4 nano
- $0.01375
- Fits in one request
GPT-5.4 nano 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 3.5 Flash-Lite
- $0.037
- Fits in one request
- GPT-5.4 nano
- $0.0205
- Fits in one request
GPT-5.4 nano 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.
SpecificationGemini 3.5 Flash-LiteGPT-5.4 nano
Context window
Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite
GPT-5.4 nano
API model ID
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite
gemini-3.5-flash-lite
Google Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite model documentationGPT-5.4 nano
gpt-5.4-nano
OpenAI GPT-5.4 nano model documentationCached-input rate
A missing cached-input rate falls back to the listed input rate only in the stated workload estimate.
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite
$0.03 per 1M cached input tokens
Google Gemini API pricingGPT-5.4 nano
$0.02 per 1M cached input tokens
OpenAI pricingDocumented inputs
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite
text, image, video, audio, pdf
Google Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite model documentationGPT-5.4 nano
text, image
OpenAI model catalogDocumented outputs
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite
GPT-5.4 nano
Provider availability
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite
Generally Available · Gemini API, Google AI Studio
Google latest Gemini model guideGPT-5.4 nano
Generally Available · OpenAI Responses API
OpenAI model catalogReasoning profile
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite
Reasoning
GPT-5.4 nano
Reasoning
Weight access
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite
Proprietary
GPT-5.4 nano
Proprietary
License
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite
Proprietary
GPT-5.4 nano
Proprietary
Release date
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite
2026-07-21
GPT-5.4 nano
2026-03-17
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 nano has the higher public score estimate, 62.19 versus 60.5, but the 90% score intervals overlap.
- Workload cost
- Repository review: $0.0225 vs $0.01375. Cache-heavy agent loop: $0.037 vs $0.0205.
- Context tradeoff
- Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite has the larger documented window (1M).
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 evidence21 rows
Agentic
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite54%SourceGPT-5.4 nano46.3%SourceGemini 3.5 Flash-Lite leads this result
OSWorld-Verified
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite74%SourceGPT-5.4 nano39%SourceGemini 3.5 Flash-Lite leads this result
Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals)
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite50.2%SourceGPT-5.4 nano41.6%SourceGemini 3.5 Flash-Lite leads this result
MCP Atlas
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite—GPT-5.4 nano56.1%SourceNot directly comparable
Toolathlon
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite—GPT-5.4 nano35.5%SourceNot directly comparable
τ²-bench results
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite—GPT-5.4 nano92.5%SourceNot directly comparable
Coding
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite54.0%SourceGPT-5.4 nano—Not directly comparable
SWE-bench Pro
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite54.2%SourceGPT-5.4 nano—Not directly comparable
LiveCodeBench (Vals)
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite79.0%SourceGPT-5.4 nano84.0%SourceGPT-5.4 nano leads this result
SWE-bench (Vals)
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite75.0%SourceGPT-5.4 nano69.8%SourceGemini 3.5 Flash-Lite leads this result
Vibe Code Bench
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite—GPT-5.4 nano26.10%SourceNot directly comparable
Reasoning
MRCRv2
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite72.2%SourceGPT-5.4 nano—Not directly comparable
Knowledge
GPQA Diamond (Vals)
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite83.8%SourceGPT-5.4 nano77.5%SourceGemini 3.5 Flash-Lite leads this result
MMLU-Pro (Vals)
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite85.8%SourceGPT-5.4 nano77.2%SourceGemini 3.5 Flash-Lite leads this result
GPQA
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite—GPT-5.4 nano82.8%SourceNot directly comparable
HLE
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite—GPT-5.4 nano37.7%SourceNot directly comparable
HLE w/o tools
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite—GPT-5.4 nano24.3%SourceNot directly comparable
Math
Multimodal
Frequently asked questions
Which is better, Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite or GPT-5.4 nano?
GPT-5.4 nano has the higher public score estimate, 62.19 versus 60.5, 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 3.5 Flash-Lite or GPT-5.4 nano?
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite leads the public coding lane, 43.6 to 37.5, with Supported evidence for both models, although the 90% intervals overlap.
Which is better for agentic tasks, Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite or GPT-5.4 nano?
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite scores higher for agentic tasks on the public lane, 43.4 to 37.3. Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite 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.
Which costs less, Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite or GPT-5.4 nano?
For the stated presets, chat costs $0.00155 on Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite and $0.00082 on GPT-5.4 nano; repository review costs $0.0225 and $0.01375; the cache-heavy agent loop costs $0.037 and $0.0205. Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Which has the larger context window, Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite or GPT-5.4 nano?
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite has the larger documented context window: 1M, compared with 400K.
Related comparisons
Last updated September 4, 2026
Watch Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite vs GPT-5.4 nano
One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.
Read a sample issueJoin 2,000+ readers.