Agentic
Not comparable- GPT-4o
- Not measured
- GPT-4o mini Audio
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Model comparison
GPT-4o vs GPT-4o mini Audio
Updated August 4, 2026. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. They are not guarantees for a specific workload.
The public evidence has no benchmark result shared by both models, so it does not support a quality verdict. Use the documented cost, context, and runtime rows instead.
0 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.
Chat turn cost
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
GPT-4o mini Audio
GPT-4o mini Audio 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
Repository review cost
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
GPT-4o mini Audio
GPT-4o mini Audio has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Confidence: listed-rates
Coding work
Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks
Not enough matched evidence
No shared weighted benchmark basis supports a winner.
Confidence: limited
Agentic work
Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion
Not enough matched evidence
No shared weighted benchmark basis supports a winner.
Confidence: limited
Long documents
Prompts that approach the documented context limit
No clear pick
The documented context windows are equal.
Confidence: documented
Cache-heavy agent loop cost
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
Not enough matched evidence
The page does not recommend a cost winner because at least one model cannot fit the stated workload in one request. GPT-4o does not fit this workload in one request. GPT-4o mini Audio does not fit this workload in one request. GPT-4o has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate. GPT-4o mini Audio has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.
Confidence: rate-fallback
What is actually comparable
Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results present for only one model describe coverage, not superiority.
1 GPT-4o only
- Shared results
- 0
- GPT-4o only
- 1
- GPT-4o mini Audio only
- 0
- Like-for-like categories
- 0 / 8
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.
Coding
Not comparable- GPT-4o
- Not measured
- GPT-4o mini Audio
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Reasoning
Not comparable- GPT-4o
- Not measured
- GPT-4o mini Audio
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Knowledge
Not comparable- GPT-4o
- Not measured
- GPT-4o mini Audio
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Math
Not comparable- GPT-4o
- 0.3
- GPT-4o mini Audio
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 1 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multilingual
Not comparable- GPT-4o
- Not measured
- GPT-4o mini Audio
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multimodal
Not comparable- GPT-4o
- Not measured
- GPT-4o mini Audio
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Instruction following
Not comparable- GPT-4o
- Not measured
- GPT-4o mini Audio
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
| Category | GPT-4o | GPT-4o mini Audio | Weighted basis | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agentic | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Coding | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Reasoning | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Knowledge | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Math | 0.3 | Not measured | Not comparable1 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Multilingual | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Multimodal | 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.
A shared-evidence shape is not available.
BenchLM does not draw a radar or infer missing axes when the matched evidence is too sparse.
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
- GPT-4o
- $0.0075
- Fits in one request
- GPT-4o mini Audio
- $0.00045
- Fits in one request
GPT-4o mini Audio has the lower modeled cost
Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Repository review
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
- GPT-4o
- $0.155
- Fits in one request
- GPT-4o mini Audio
- $0.0093
- Fits in one request
GPT-4o mini Audio has the lower modeled cost
Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Cache-heavy agent loop
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
- GPT-4o
- $0.65
- Does not fit in one request
- Cached input priced at the published list-input rate
- GPT-4o mini Audio
- $0.039
- Does not fit in one request
- Cached input priced at the published list-input rate
GPT-4o does not fit this workload in one request. GPT-4o mini Audio does not fit this workload in one request. GPT-4o has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate. GPT-4o mini Audio has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.
Specification differences
Sourced differences are shown directly. Missing facts stay explicit instead of being inferred from a model name or family.
SpecificationGPT-4oGPT-4o mini Audio
Context window
Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.
GPT-4o
128K
GPT-4o mini Audio
API model ID
GPT-4o
Not sourced
GPT-4o mini Audio
gpt-4o-mini-audio-preview
OpenAI model documentationCached-input rate
A missing cached-input rate falls back to the listed input rate only in the stated workload estimate.
GPT-4o
Not published
GPT-4o mini Audio
Not published
OpenAI model documentationDocumented inputs
GPT-4o
Not sourced
GPT-4o mini Audio
Not sourced
Documented outputs
GPT-4o
Not sourced
GPT-4o mini Audio
Not sourced
Provider availability
GPT-4o
Not sourced
GPT-4o mini Audio
Not sourced
Reasoning profile
GPT-4o
Non-Reasoning
GPT-4o mini Audio
Non-Reasoning
Weight access
GPT-4o
Proprietary
GPT-4o mini Audio
Proprietary
License
GPT-4o
Proprietary
GPT-4o mini Audio
Proprietary
Release date
GPT-4o
2024-05-13
GPT-4o mini Audio
Not sourced
If you already use one of these models
- Deployment change
- Both entries list OpenAI as the provider. Confirm endpoint, model ID, limits, and feature support before switching.
- Quality signal
- The public evidence has no benchmark result shared by both models, so it does not support a quality verdict.
- Workload cost
- Repository review: $0.155 vs $0.0093. Cache-heavy agent loop: $0.65 vs $0.039.
- Context tradeoff
- Both models list 128K.
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 evidence1 rows
Math
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)
GPT-4o0.345%SourceGPT-4o mini Audio—Not directly comparable
Frequently asked questions
Which is better, GPT-4o or GPT-4o mini Audio?
The public evidence has no benchmark result shared by both models, so it does not support a quality verdict. The page therefore keeps the decision tied to the specific documented workload.
Which is better for coding, GPT-4o or GPT-4o mini Audio?
The published evidence does not provide a shared weighted coding basis for both models, so BenchLM does not name a coding winner.
Which is better for agentic tasks, GPT-4o or GPT-4o mini Audio?
The published evidence does not provide a shared weighted agentic tasks basis for both models, so BenchLM does not name a agentic tasks winner.
Which costs less, GPT-4o or GPT-4o mini Audio?
For the stated presets, chat costs $0.0075 on GPT-4o and $0.00045 on GPT-4o mini Audio; repository review costs $0.155 and $0.0093; the cache-heavy agent loop costs $0.65 and $0.039. GPT-4o does not fit this workload in one request. GPT-4o mini Audio does not fit this workload in one request. GPT-4o has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate. GPT-4o mini Audio has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.
Which has the larger context window, GPT-4o or GPT-4o mini Audio?
Both models list the same context window, 128K.
Related comparisons
Last updated August 4, 2026
Watch GPT-4o vs GPT-4o mini Audio
One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.
Read a sample issueJoin 2,000+ readers.