Coding
Like-for-like- Gemini 3.5 Flash
- 55.1
- GPT-5.4
- 57.7
- Weighted basis
- 1 vs 1 rows
- Reading
- GPT-5.4 leads
Gemini 3.5 Flash vs GPT-5.4
Updated August 18, 2026. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. They are not guarantees for a specific workload.
Decision reading
GPT-5.4 has the higher public score estimate, 73.36 versus 64.67, but the 90% score intervals overlap. Treat that as a lead, not a settled winner.
16 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.
Coding work
Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks
GPT-5.4
GPT-5.4 leads on the same 1 weighted benchmark row.
Confidence: limited
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 3.5 Flash
Gemini 3.5 Flash 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
Gemini 3.5 Flash
Gemini 3.5 Flash 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
Gemini 3.5 Flash
Gemini 3.5 Flash 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
The category averages use different weighted benchmark sets, so they are 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.
7 Gemini 3.5 Flash only
16 Shared
22 GPT-5.4 only
- Shared results
- 16
- Gemini 3.5 Flash only
- 7
- GPT-5.4 only
- 22
- Like-for-like categories
- 2 / 8
4 categories use 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.
Math
Like-for-like- Gemini 3.5 Flash
- 32.9
- GPT-5.4
- 42.5
- Weighted basis
- 2 vs 2 rows
- Reading
- GPT-5.4 leads
Agentic
Directional only- Gemini 3.5 Flash
- 77.2
- GPT-5.4
- 77.2
- Weighted basis
- 2 vs 3 rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Reasoning
Directional only- Gemini 3.5 Flash
- 74.7
- GPT-5.4
- 74.0
- Weighted basis
- 2 vs 1 rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Knowledge
Directional only- Gemini 3.5 Flash
- 40.2
- GPT-5.4
- 57.6
- Weighted basis
- 1 vs 2 rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Multimodal
Directional only- Gemini 3.5 Flash
- 83.8
- GPT-5.4
- 73.2
- Weighted basis
- 2 vs 3 rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Multilingual
Not comparable- Gemini 3.5 Flash
- Not measured
- GPT-5.4
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Instruction following
Not comparable- Gemini 3.5 Flash
- Not measured
- GPT-5.4
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
| Category | Gemini 3.5 Flash | GPT-5.4 | Weighted basis | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | 55.1 | 57.7 | Like-for-like1 vs 1 rows | GPT-5.4 leads |
| Math | 32.9 | 42.5 | Like-for-like2 vs 2 rows | GPT-5.4 leads |
| Agentic | 77.2 | 77.2 | Directional only2 vs 3 rows | Directional only |
| Reasoning | 74.7 | 74.0 | Directional only2 vs 1 rows | Directional only |
| Knowledge | 40.2 | 57.6 | Directional only1 vs 2 rows | Directional only |
| Multimodal | 83.8 | 73.2 | Directional only2 vs 3 rows | Directional only |
| Multilingual | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Instruction following | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | 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.
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)
Math
HLE
Knowledge
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)
Math
OSWorld-Verified
Agentic
SWE-bench Pro
Coding
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
- $0.006
- Fits in one request
- GPT-5.4
- $0.01
- Fits in one request
Gemini 3.5 Flash has the lower modeled cost
Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Repository review
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
- Gemini 3.5 Flash
- $0.102
- Fits in one request
- GPT-5.4
- $0.17
- Fits in one request
Gemini 3.5 Flash 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
- $0.15
- Fits in one request
- GPT-5.4
- $0.25
- Fits in one request
Gemini 3.5 Flash 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 FlashGPT-5.4
Context window
Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.
Gemini 3.5 Flash
GPT-5.4
1.05M
OpenAI pricingAPI model ID
Gemini 3.5 Flash
gemini-3.5-flash
Google Gemini API pricingGPT-5.4
gpt-5.4
OpenAI pricingCached-input rate
A missing cached-input rate falls back to the listed input rate only in the stated workload estimate.
Gemini 3.5 Flash
$0.15 per 1M cached input tokens
Google Gemini API pricingGPT-5.4
$0.25 per 1M cached input tokens
OpenAI pricingDocumented inputs
Gemini 3.5 Flash
Not sourced
GPT-5.4
Not sourced
Documented outputs
Gemini 3.5 Flash
Not sourced
GPT-5.4
Not sourced
Provider availability
Gemini 3.5 Flash
Not sourced
GPT-5.4
Not sourced
Reasoning profile
Gemini 3.5 Flash
Reasoning
GPT-5.4
Reasoning
Weight access
Gemini 3.5 Flash
Proprietary
GPT-5.4
Proprietary
License
Gemini 3.5 Flash
Proprietary
GPT-5.4
Proprietary
Release date
Gemini 3.5 Flash
2026-05-19
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, 73.36 versus 64.67, but the 90% score intervals overlap.
- Workload cost
- Repository review: $0.102 vs $0.17. Cache-heavy agent loop: $0.15 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 evidence45 rows
Agentic
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Gemini 3.5 Flash76.2%SourceGPT-5.475.1%SourceGemini 3.5 Flash leads this result
MCP Atlas
Gemini 3.5 Flash83.6%SourceGPT-5.470.6%SourceGemini 3.5 Flash leads this result
Toolathlon
Gemini 3.5 Flash56.5%SourceGPT-5.454.6%SourceGemini 3.5 Flash leads this result
OSWorld-Verified
Gemini 3.5 Flash78.4%SourceGPT-5.475%SourceGemini 3.5 Flash leads this result
Finance Agent v2
Gemini 3.5 Flash57.9%SourceGPT-5.4—Not directly comparable
Gert Labs
Shared sourceGemini 3.5 Flash61.85%GPT-5.464.89%GPT-5.4 leads this result
ResearchClawBench
Shared sourceGemini 3.5 Flash18.0%GPT-5.415.3%Gemini 3.5 Flash leads this result
CyberGym
Gemini 3.5 Flash—GPT-5.479.0%SourceNot directly comparable
BrowseComp
Gemini 3.5 Flash—GPT-5.482.7%SourceNot directly comparable
τ²-bench results
Gemini 3.5 Flash—GPT-5.498.9%SourceNot directly comparable
Claw-Eval
Gemini 3.5 Flash—GPT-5.460.3%SourceNot directly comparable
DeepSearchQA
Gemini 3.5 Flash—GPT-5.473.6%SourceNot directly comparable
JobBench
Gemini 3.5 Flash—GPT-5.438.9%SourceNot directly comparable
ExploitGym
Gemini 3.5 Flash—GPT-5.46.0%SourceNot directly comparable
Coding
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Gemini 3.5 Flash76.2%SourceGPT-5.4—Not directly comparable
SWE-bench Pro
Gemini 3.5 Flash55.1%SourceGPT-5.457.7%SourceGPT-5.4 leads this result
Vibe Code Bench
Shared sourceGemini 3.5 Flash48.68%GPT-5.467.42%GPT-5.4 leads this result
cursorBench31
Gemini 3.5 Flash49.8%SourceGPT-5.4—Not directly comparable
cursorBench32
Gemini 3.5 Flash48.8%SourceGPT-5.4—Not directly comparable
EEBench
Shared sourceGemini 3.5 Flash34.3%GPT-5.438.5%GPT-5.4 leads this result
LiveCodeBench Pro
Gemini 3.5 Flash—GPT-5.487.5%SourceNot directly comparable
React Native Evals
Gemini 3.5 Flash—GPT-5.485.3%SourceNot directly comparable
Reasoning
Knowledge
GPQA-D
Gemini 3.5 Flash92.7%SourceGPT-5.492.8%SourceGPT-5.4 leads this result
HLE
Gemini 3.5 Flash40.2%SourceGPT-5.452.1%SourceGPT-5.4 leads this result
GPQA
Gemini 3.5 Flash—GPT-5.492.8%SourceNot directly comparable
HLE w/o tools
Gemini 3.5 Flash—GPT-5.439.8%SourceNot directly comparable
HealthBench Hard
Gemini 3.5 Flash—GPT-5.440.1%SourceNot directly comparable
MedXpertQA (Text)
Gemini 3.5 Flash—GPT-5.459.6%SourceNot directly comparable
HealthBench Professional
Gemini 3.5 Flash—GPT-5.448.1%SourceNot directly comparable
Math
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)
Shared sourceGemini 3.5 Flash38.966%GPT-5.447.600%GPT-5.4 leads this result
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)
Shared sourceGemini 3.5 Flash14.583%GPT-5.427.100%GPT-5.4 leads this result
Multimodal
CharXiv
Gemini 3.5 Flash84.2%SourceGPT-5.482.8%SourceGemini 3.5 Flash leads this result
MMMU-Pro
Gemini 3.5 Flash83.6%SourceGPT-5.481.2%SourceGemini 3.5 Flash leads this result
Blueprint-Bench 2
Gemini 3.5 Flash33.6%SourceGPT-5.4—Not directly comparable
OfficeQA Pro
Gemini 3.5 Flash—GPT-5.453.2%SourceNot directly comparable
MMMU-Pro w/ Python
Gemini 3.5 Flash—GPT-5.482.1%SourceNot directly comparable
ERQA
Gemini 3.5 Flash—GPT-5.465.4%SourceNot directly comparable
SimpleVQA
Gemini 3.5 Flash—GPT-5.461.1%SourceNot directly comparable
ScreenSpot Pro
Gemini 3.5 Flash—GPT-5.485.4%SourceNot directly comparable
ZeroBench
Gemini 3.5 Flash—GPT-5.441.0%SourceNot directly comparable
MedXpertQA (MM)
Gemini 3.5 Flash—GPT-5.477.1%SourceNot directly comparable
Frequently asked questions
Which is better, Gemini 3.5 Flash or GPT-5.4?
GPT-5.4 has the higher public score estimate, 73.36 versus 64.67, 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 or GPT-5.4?
GPT-5.4 leads the like-for-like coding comparison across 1 shared weighted benchmark row.
Which is better for agentic tasks, Gemini 3.5 Flash or GPT-5.4?
The current agentic tasks averages use different weighted benchmark sets, so BenchLM does not name a winner from them. Read the shared benchmark rows directly and test the models on the same task set.
Which costs less, Gemini 3.5 Flash or GPT-5.4?
For the stated presets, chat costs $0.006 on Gemini 3.5 Flash and $0.01 on GPT-5.4; repository review costs $0.102 and $0.17; the cache-heavy agent loop costs $0.15 and $0.25. Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Which has the larger context window, Gemini 3.5 Flash or GPT-5.4?
GPT-5.4 has the larger documented context window: 1.05M, compared with 1M.
Related comparisons
Last updated August 18, 2026
Watch Gemini 3.5 Flash vs GPT-5.4
One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.
Read a sample issueJoin 2,000+ readers.