Model comparison
Gemini 3.6 Flash vs GPT-5.4
Head-to-head evidence from 15 shared benchmark results across 5 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: Gemini 3.6 Flash 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 3.6 Flash and GPT-5.4 share 15 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 4 results are unique to Gemini 3.6 Flash; 37 to GPT-5.4.
Updated July 21, 2026- Shared results
- 15
- Gemini 3.6 Flash only
- 4
- GPT-5.4 only
- 37
- Comparable categories
- 1 / 8
Treat this as a split decision. Gemini 3.6 Flash makes more sense if agentic is the priority or you want the cheaper token bill; GPT-5.4 is the better fit if you need the larger 1.05M context window.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 15 shared benchmark results across 5 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
Gemini 3.6 Flash 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 $1.50 input / $7.50 output per 1M tokens for Gemini 3.6 Flash. That is roughly 2.0x on output cost alone. GPT-5.4 gives you the larger context window at 1.05M, compared with 1M for Gemini 3.6 Flash.
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 3.6 Flash | Δ | GPT-5.4 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agentic | Gemini 3.6 Flash83.0 | Margin← 5.8 | GPT-5.477.2 |
| Coding | Gemini 3.6 FlashNot measured | MarginNo overlap | GPT-5.457.7 |
| Knowledge | Gemini 3.6 FlashNot measured | MarginNo overlap | GPT-5.457.6 |
| Math | Gemini 3.6 FlashNot measured | MarginNo overlap | GPT-5.442.5 |
| Multimodal | Gemini 3.6 FlashNot measured | MarginNo overlap | GPT-5.473.2 |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
OSWorld-Verified
AgenticA 83%B 75%Winner: Gemini 3.6 FlashΔ 8OSWorld-Verified: Gemini 3.6 Flash scored 83%; GPT-5.4 scored 75%. Gemini 3.6 Flash wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Gemini 3.6 Flash | GPT-5.4 | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Gemini 3.6 Flash$1.5 input / $7.5 output | GPT-5.4$2.5 input / $15 output | Gemini 3.6 Flash has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Gemini 3.6 FlashNot available | GPT-5.474 tok/s | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Gemini 3.6 FlashNot available | GPT-5.4151.79 s | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Gemini 3.6 Flash1M | GPT-5.41.05M | GPT-5.4 lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
AgenticGemini 3.6 Flash wins20 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.6 Flash | GPT-5.4 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| OSWorld-VerifiedSource | 83% | 75% | Gemini 3.6 Flash leads |
| GDPval-AASource | 1421 | 1395 | Gemini 3.6 Flash leads |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | 38.7% | 41.1% | GPT-5.4 leads |
| GDPval-AASource | 46.1% | 44.7% | Gemini 3.6 Flash leads |
| AA BriefcaseSource | 961 | — | Not comparable |
| AA Tau3 BankingSource | 24.5% | — | Not comparable |
| aaTerminalBench21Source | 77.5% | — | Not comparable |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | — | 75.1% | 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 |
Coding7 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.6 Flash | GPT-5.4 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| deepSweSource | 49% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Coding IndexSource | 69.2% | 71.0% | GPT-5.4 leads |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 52.7% | 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 |
| Vibe Code BenchSource | — | 67.42% | Not comparable |
Reasoning2 benchmarks
Knowledge13 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.6 Flash | GPT-5.4 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 50.1% | 51.4% | GPT-5.4 leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 92.8% | 92.0% | Gemini 3.6 Flash leads |
| AA-HLESource | 38.3% | 41.6% | GPT-5.4 leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | 23.5% | 5.7% | Gemini 3.6 Flash leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 50.2% | 50.0% | Gemini 3.6 Flash leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 53.5% | 88.6% | Gemini 3.6 Flash 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 3.6 Flash | GPT-5.4 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-MMMU-ProSource | 83.2% | 78.4% | Gemini 3.6 Flash 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 3.6 Flash | GPT-5.4 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | — | 73.9% | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (2)
Which is better, Gemini 3.6 Flash or GPT-5.4?
Gemini 3.6 Flash 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 agentic tasks, Gemini 3.6 Flash or GPT-5.4?
Gemini 3.6 Flash has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 83 versus 77.2. 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.