Agentic
Not comparable- GPT-5.2 Pro
- Not measured
- GPT-5.4 mini
- 65.7
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 2 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Model comparison
GPT-5.2 Pro vs GPT-5.4 mini
Updated July 31, 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-5.4 mini
GPT-5.4 mini has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Confidence: listed-rates
Cache-heavy agent loop cost
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
GPT-5.4 mini
GPT-5.4 mini has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. GPT-5.2 Pro has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.
Confidence: rate-fallback
Show secondary and unsupported calls
Repository review cost
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
GPT-5.4 mini
GPT-5.4 mini 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
What is actually comparable
Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results present for only one model describe coverage, not superiority.
14 GPT-5.4 mini only
- Shared results
- 0
- GPT-5.2 Pro only
- 0
- GPT-5.4 mini only
- 14
- 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-5.2 Pro
- Not measured
- GPT-5.4 mini
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Reasoning
Not comparable- GPT-5.2 Pro
- Not measured
- GPT-5.4 mini
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Knowledge
Not comparable- GPT-5.2 Pro
- Not measured
- GPT-5.4 mini
- 47.8
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 2 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Math
Not comparable- GPT-5.2 Pro
- Not measured
- GPT-5.4 mini
- 21.7
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 2 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multilingual
Not comparable- GPT-5.2 Pro
- Not measured
- GPT-5.4 mini
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multimodal
Not comparable- GPT-5.2 Pro
- Not measured
- GPT-5.4 mini
- 76.6
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 1 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Instruction following
Not comparable- GPT-5.2 Pro
- Not measured
- GPT-5.4 mini
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
| Category | GPT-5.2 Pro | GPT-5.4 mini | Weighted basis | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agentic | Not measured | 65.7 | Not comparable0 vs 2 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 | 47.8 | Not comparable0 vs 2 rows | Not comparable |
| Math | Not measured | 21.7 | Not comparable0 vs 2 rows | Not comparable |
| Multilingual | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Multimodal | Not measured | 76.6 | Not comparable0 vs 1 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-5.2 Pro
- $0.1
- Fits in one request
- GPT-5.4 mini
- $0.003
- Fits in one request
GPT-5.4 mini has the lower modeled cost
Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Repository review
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
- GPT-5.2 Pro
- $1.70
- Fits in one request
- GPT-5.4 mini
- $0.051
- Fits in one request
GPT-5.4 mini 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-5.2 Pro
- $7.00
- Fits in one request
- Cached input priced at the published list-input rate
- GPT-5.4 mini
- $0.075
- Fits in one request
GPT-5.4 mini has the lower modeled cost
GPT-5.2 Pro 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-5.2 ProGPT-5.4 mini
Context window
Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.
GPT-5.2 Pro
400K
GPT-5.4 mini
API model ID
GPT-5.2 Pro
Not sourced
GPT-5.4 mini
gpt-5.4-mini
OpenAI GPT-5.4 mini model documentationCached-input rate
A missing cached-input rate falls back to the listed input rate only in the stated workload estimate.
GPT-5.2 Pro
Not published
GPT-5.4 mini
$0.075 per 1M cached input tokens
OpenAI pricingDocumented inputs
GPT-5.2 Pro
Not sourced
GPT-5.4 mini
text, image
OpenAI model catalogDocumented outputs
GPT-5.2 Pro
Not sourced
GPT-5.4 mini
Provider availability
GPT-5.2 Pro
Not sourced
GPT-5.4 mini
Generally Available · OpenAI Responses API
OpenAI model catalogReasoning profile
GPT-5.2 Pro
Reasoning
GPT-5.4 mini
Reasoning
Weight access
GPT-5.2 Pro
Proprietary
GPT-5.4 mini
Proprietary
License
GPT-5.2 Pro
Proprietary
GPT-5.4 mini
Proprietary
Release date
GPT-5.2 Pro
2025-12-11
GPT-5.4 mini
2026-03-17
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: $1.70 vs $0.051. Cache-heavy agent loop: $7.00 vs $0.075.
- Context tradeoff
- Both models list 400K.
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 evidence14 rows
Agentic
Terminal-Bench 2.0
GPT-5.2 Pro—GPT-5.4 mini60%SourceNot directly comparable
OSWorld-Verified
GPT-5.2 Pro—GPT-5.4 mini72.1%SourceNot directly comparable
MCP Atlas
GPT-5.2 Pro—GPT-5.4 mini57.7%SourceNot directly comparable
Toolathlon
GPT-5.2 Pro—GPT-5.4 mini42.9%SourceNot directly comparable
τ²-bench results
GPT-5.2 Pro—GPT-5.4 mini93.4%SourceNot directly comparable
Coding
Knowledge
Math
Multimodal
Frequently asked questions
Which is better, GPT-5.2 Pro or GPT-5.4 mini?
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-5.2 Pro or GPT-5.4 mini?
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-5.2 Pro or GPT-5.4 mini?
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-5.2 Pro or GPT-5.4 mini?
For the stated presets, chat costs $0.1 on GPT-5.2 Pro and $0.003 on GPT-5.4 mini; repository review costs $1.70 and $0.051; the cache-heavy agent loop costs $7.00 and $0.075. GPT-5.2 Pro has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.
Which has the larger context window, GPT-5.2 Pro or GPT-5.4 mini?
Both models list the same context window, 400K.
Related comparisons
Last updated July 31, 2026
Watch GPT-5.2 Pro vs GPT-5.4 mini
One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.
Read a sample issueJoin 2,000+ readers.