Coding
Like-for-like- GPT-5.3 Codex
- 62.7
- Supported · #16/183
- GPT-5.5
- 67.7
- Supported · #8/183
- Basis
- BenchAlign lane · 4 vs 9 public rows
- Reading
- GPT-5.5 leads · intervals overlap
Five or fewer confirmed AI changes, with original sources, on mornings when something changed.A free source-linked morning brief.
See the free Radar BriefUpdated September 4, 2026. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. They are not guarantees for a specific workload.
Decision reading
GPT-5.5 has the higher public score, 73.27 versus 65.22, and the 90% score intervals do not overlap.
6 results are shared. Category rows resting on Estimated evidence or different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.
Share or export
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.
Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks
GPT-5.5
GPT-5.5 leads on the public coding lane, 67.7 to 62.7, with Supported evidence for both models, although the 90% intervals overlap.
Confidence: limited
Prompts that approach the documented context limit
GPT-5.5
GPT-5.5 has the larger documented context window.
Confidence: documented
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
GPT-5.3 Codex
GPT-5.3 Codex has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Confidence: listed-rates
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
GPT-5.5
GPT-5.5 has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. GPT-5.3 Codex has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.
Confidence: rate-fallback
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
GPT-5.3 Codex
GPT-5.3 Codex has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Confidence: listed-rates
Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion
Not enough matched evidence
GPT-5.3 Codex is scored on Estimated evidence for agentic, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like.
Confidence: limited
Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results present for only one model describe coverage, not superiority.
3 categories rest on Estimated evidence or different evidence sets. Those rows remain visible for coverage context but do not name a winner.
Each row shows the public-lane category score for both models: the BenchAlign lane for agentic, coding, and knowledge, and the weighted public rows elsewhere, with the same rank each model page reports. A row is like-for-like only when both scores rest on Supported evidence or the same weighted set. Directional and not-comparable rows remain visible, but they never receive a winner.
| Category | GPT-5.3 Codex | GPT-5.5 | Basis | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | 62.7Supported · #16/183 | 67.7Supported · #8/183 | Like-for-likeBenchAlign lane · 4 vs 9 public rows | GPT-5.5 leads · intervals overlap |
| Agentic | 62.3Estimated · #19/151 | 63.9Supported · #15/151 | Directional onlyBenchAlign lane · 4 vs 13 public rows | Directional only |
| Knowledge | 66.3Estimated · #22/181 | 73.3Supported · #7/181 | Directional onlyBenchAlign lane · 0 vs 6 public rows | Directional only |
| Instruction following | 92.3#15/120 | 92.9#7/120 | Directional onlyProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Directional only |
| Reasoning | 77.3Unranked · 2 rankable rows | 63.5#15/22 | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 2 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Math | Not ranked | 69.6Unranked · 3 rankable rows | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 2 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Multilingual | Not ranked | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Multimodal | 75.6Unranked · 1 rankable row | 71.3#19/48 | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 2 weighted rows | Not comparable |
Ranks count the models scored in each category’s lane, so the agentic, coding, and knowledge denominators (BenchAlign) differ from the provisional-lane categories. Unranked scores sit on the lane’s scale but never name a winner. Like-for-like rows within 0.5 points read as a practical tie.
Only shared public evidence is shown. Sparse evidence stays a ruled list rather than being closed into a radar shape.
Too few matched category axes support a radar. The ruled list below shows only shared benchmark results; positions use each benchmark’s normalized display scale when available.
OSWorld-Verified
Agentic
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Agentic
SWE-bench Pro
Coding
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.
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
GPT-5.3 Codex has the lower modeled cost
Costs use the listed standard API rates.
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
GPT-5.3 Codex has the lower modeled cost
Costs use the listed standard API rates.
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
GPT-5.5 has the lower modeled cost
GPT-5.3 Codex has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.
Sourced differences are shown directly. Missing facts stay explicit instead of being inferred from a model name or family.
Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.
GPT-5.3 Codex
GPT-5.5
GPT-5.3 Codex
gpt-5.3-codex
OpenAI GPT-5.3 Codex model documentationGPT-5.5
gpt-5.5
OpenAI pricingA missing cached-input rate falls back to the listed input rate only in the stated workload estimate.
GPT-5.3 Codex
Not published
GPT-5.5
$0.5 per 1M cached input tokens
OpenAI pricingGPT-5.3 Codex
text, image
OpenAI model catalogGPT-5.5
Not sourced
GPT-5.3 Codex
GPT-5.5
Not sourced
GPT-5.3 Codex
Generally Available · OpenAI Responses API
OpenAI model catalogGPT-5.5
Not sourced
GPT-5.3 Codex
Reasoning
GPT-5.5
Reasoning
GPT-5.3 Codex
Proprietary
GPT-5.5
Proprietary
GPT-5.3 Codex
Proprietary
GPT-5.5
Proprietary
GPT-5.3 Codex
2026-02-05
GPT-5.5
2026-04-23
Run the same representative tasks against both endpoints before changing production traffic.
The full public result ledger is available for audit without forcing a wide desktop table onto a phone.
Terminal-Bench 2.0
GPT-5.5 leads this result
OSWorld-Verified
GPT-5.5 leads this result
Gert Labs
Shared sourceGPT-5.5 leads this result
JobBench
Shared sourceGPT-5.5 leads this result
CyberGym
Not directly comparable
BrowseComp
Not directly comparable
MCP Atlas
Not directly comparable
Toolathlon
Not directly comparable
τ²-bench results
Not directly comparable
ResearchClawBench
Not directly comparable
OSWorld 2.0
Not directly comparable
ExploitGym
Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals)
Not directly comparable
SWE-bench Verified
Not directly comparable
SWE-bench Pro
GPT-5.5 leads this result
SWE-Rebench
Not directly comparable
Vibe Code Bench
Shared sourceGPT-5.5 leads this result
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Not directly comparable
React Native Evals
Not directly comparable
cursorBench31
Not directly comparable
cursorBench32
Not directly comparable
FrontierCode 1.1 Main
Not directly comparable
LiveCodeBench (Vals)
Not directly comparable
SWE-bench (Vals)
Not directly comparable
GPQA
Not directly comparable
GPQA-D
Not directly comparable
HLE
Not directly comparable
HLE w/o tools
Not directly comparable
GPQA Diamond (Vals)
Not directly comparable
MMLU-Pro (Vals)
Not directly comparable
GPT-5.5 has the higher public score, 73.27 versus 65.22, and the 90% score intervals do not overlap. That is the clearest overall quality signal in the current public data.
GPT-5.5 leads the public coding lane, 67.7 to 62.7, with Supported evidence for both models, although the 90% intervals overlap.
GPT-5.5 scores higher for agentic tasks on the public lane, 63.9 to 62.3. GPT-5.3 Codex is scored on Estimated evidence for agentic tasks, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like. BenchLM does not name a winner for agentic tasks from a directional reading; read the shared benchmark rows directly and test the models on the same task set.
For the stated presets, chat costs $0.00875 on GPT-5.3 Codex and $0.02 on GPT-5.5; repository review costs $0.1295 and $0.34; the cache-heavy agent loop costs $0.525 and $0.5. GPT-5.3 Codex has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.
GPT-5.5 has the larger documented context window: 1M, compared with 400K.
Last updated September 4, 2026
One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.
Read a sample issueJoin 2,000+ readers.