Head-to-head comparison across 1benchmark categories. Overall scores shown here use BenchLM's provisional ranking lane.
GPT-5.3 Codex
87
GPT-5.4 nano
60
Pick GPT-5.3 Codex if you want the stronger benchmark profile. GPT-5.4 nano only becomes the better choice if you want the cheaper token bill.
Agentic
+28.6 difference
GPT-5.3 Codex
GPT-5.4 nano
$1.75 / $14
$0.2 / $1.25
79 t/s
191 t/s
88.26s
3.64s
400K
400K
Pick GPT-5.3 Codex if you want the stronger benchmark profile. GPT-5.4 nano only becomes the better choice if you want the cheaper token bill.
GPT-5.3 Codex is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 87 to 60. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
GPT-5.3 Codex's sharpest advantage is in agentic, where it averages 71.5 against 42.9. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is Terminal-Bench 2.0, 77.3% to 46.3%.
GPT-5.3 Codex is also the more expensive model on tokens at $1.75 input / $14.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.20 input / $1.25 output per 1M tokens for GPT-5.4 nano. That is roughly 11.2x on output cost alone.
GPT-5.3 Codex is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 87 to 60. The biggest single separator in this matchup is Terminal-Bench 2.0, where the scores are 77.3% and 46.3%.
GPT-5.3 Codex has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 71.5 versus 42.9. Inside this category, Terminal-Bench 2.0 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.