Head-to-head comparison across 1benchmark categories. Overall scores shown here use BenchLM's provisional ranking lane.
Gemma 4 E2B
32
GPT-5.4
86
Verified leaderboard positions: Gemma 4 E2B unranked · GPT-5.4 #12
Pick GPT-5.4 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Gemma 4 E2B only becomes the better choice if you want the cheaper token bill.
Knowledge
+12.0 difference
Gemma 4 E2B
GPT-5.4
$0 / $0
$2.5 / $15
N/A
74 t/s
N/A
151.79s
128K
1.05M
Pick GPT-5.4 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Gemma 4 E2B only becomes the better choice if you want the cheaper token bill.
GPT-5.4 is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 86 to 32. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
GPT-5.4's sharpest advantage is in knowledge, where it averages 66.1 against 54.1. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is GPQA, 43.4% to 92.8%.
GPT-5.4 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $2.50 input / $15.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.00 input / $0.00 output per 1M tokens for Gemma 4 E2B. That is roughly Infinityx on output cost alone. GPT-5.4 gives you the larger context window at 1.05M, compared with 128K for Gemma 4 E2B.
GPT-5.4 is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 86 to 32. The biggest single separator in this matchup is GPQA, where the scores are 43.4% and 92.8%.
GPT-5.4 has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 66.1 versus 54.1. Inside this category, AA-Omniscience Hallucination Rate is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
For engineers, researchers, and the plain curious — a weekly brief on new models, ranking shifts, and pricing changes.
Free. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.