Skip to main content
BenchLM
Data

GPT-5.4 mini vs Pareto 26.10 Preview

Updated November 13, 2026. We do not rank this pair: at least one has no public score. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty.

Share or export
Share on XLinkedInAPI/MCP

Decision reading

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 resting on Estimated evidence or different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.

Model A
OpenAI logo

OpenAI

52.9/100

Supported · Public rank #78

90% interval 41.8–64.0

Model B

Unbiased

—

Evidence status unavailable

90% interval unavailable

API price per 1M tokens

GPT-5.4 mini: $0.75 input / $4.50 output

Pareto 26.10 Preview: $2.50 input / $7.50 output

Context window

GPT-5.4 mini: 400K

Pareto 26.10 Preview: Not sourced

Released

GPT-5.4 mini: March 17, 2026

Pareto 26.10 Preview: October 1, 2026

Shared results
0
GPT-5.4 mini only
22
Pareto 26.10 Preview only
3
Like-for-like categories
0 / 8
Supported: GPT-5.4 miniHow the comparison works

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. 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-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

    Pareto 26.10 Preview is not ranked on the public lane for coding, so no winner is named for coding.

    Confidence: limited
  • Agentic work

    Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion

    Not enough matched evidence

    Pareto 26.10 Preview is not ranked on the public lane for agentic, so no winner is named for agentic.

    Confidence: limited
  • Long documents

    Prompts that approach the documented context limit

    Not enough matched evidence

    A complete context comparison is not sourced.

    Confidence: limited

Which one for a specific job

Choose a job from the LLM Selector's task catalog to see the category row it rests on, under the same basis rules as the table below. A directional row stays directional; choosing a job never creates a winner.

The same task catalog as the LLM Selector. Each job names the evidence surface it rests on; nothing here adds a new score.

34.0GPT-5.4 mini—Pareto 26.10 Preview

Not comparable · BenchAlign v5.8

The coding row is not comparable on the public lane: at least one model is not measured or not ranked there.

Coding scores combine specific tasks and setups. Match the editor, harness, and effort to your workflow.

Same basis rules as the category table below

Or describe your own job

The LLM Selector reads what you need a model for and returns a shortlist, ranked in the same order the job pages publish.

Describe the task and constraints. This selector recommends models; it cannot carry out the task or access your files and accounts.

We keep what you type here, drafts included, for 180 days, and after that only the job and requirements read from it. Nothing is tied to your IP address or account. Leave out names and other personal details. Privacy

What is actually comparable

Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results present for only one model describe coverage, not superiority.

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.

Category results, on a stated basis

Each row shows the public-lane category score for both models: the BenchAlign v5.8 lane for agentic, coding, reasoning, multimodal, 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.

Agentic

Not comparable
GPT-5.4 mini
35.4
Supported · #81/135
Pareto 26.10 Preview
Not ranked
Basis
BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 6 vs 1 public rows
Reading
Not comparable

Coding

Not comparable
GPT-5.4 mini
34.0
Supported · #91/162
Pareto 26.10 Preview
Not ranked
Basis
BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 5 vs 1 public rows
Reading
Not comparable

Reasoning

Not comparable
GPT-5.4 mini
30.6
Supported · #113/160
Pareto 26.10 Preview
Not ranked
Basis
BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 2 vs 0 public rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multimodal

Not comparable
GPT-5.4 mini
Not ranked
Pareto 26.10 Preview
Not ranked
Basis
BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 2 vs 0 public rows
Reading
Not comparable

Knowledge

Not comparable
GPT-5.4 mini
51.5
Supported · #71/180
Pareto 26.10 Preview
Not ranked
Basis
BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 5 vs 1 public rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multilingual

Not comparable
GPT-5.4 mini
Not ranked
Pareto 26.10 Preview
Not ranked
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Instruction following

Not comparable
GPT-5.4 mini
89.9
#30/157
Pareto 26.10 Preview
Not ranked
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Math

Not comparable
GPT-5.4 mini
51.9
Unranked · 2 rankable rows
Pareto 26.10 Preview
Not ranked
Basis
Provisional lane · 2 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Ranks count the models scored in each category’s lane, so the agentic, coding, reasoning, multimodal, and knowledge denominators (BenchAlign v5.8) differ from the provisional-lane categories. Unranked scores sit on the provisional lane’s scale but never name a winner. Like-for-like rows within 0.5 points read as a practical tie.

Supported evidence per lane · bars run 0–100Methodology

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-5.4 mini
$0.003
Fits in one request
Pareto 26.10 Preview
$0.00625
Fit state unavailable

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-5.4 mini
$0.051
Fits in one request
Pareto 26.10 Preview
$0.1475
Fit state unavailable

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-5.4 mini
$0.075
Fits in one request
Pareto 26.10 Preview
$0.175
Fit state unavailable

GPT-5.4 mini has the lower modeled cost

Costs use the listed standard API rates.

Your workload

Enter a month of tokens to price it at both models’ listed API rates.

GPT-5.4 mini
$16.50
per month
Pareto 26.10 Preview
$40.00
per month

Standard listed rates, no batch or volume discounts.

Cached input falls back to the list input rate only where a cached rate is unpublished

Price against score, among all priced models

Overall score against output price per 1M tokens, one model per family. Pricing as of November 12, 2026.

GPT-5.4 mini

20406080100$0.10$0.50$1$5$10$50$100Output price, $ per 1M tokens (log)Overall score
  • 17 cheaper models score at least as high as GPT-5.4 mini. The nearest is GLM-5.2 (score 59.7, $4.40 per 1M output tokens).
  • Pareto 26.10 Preview has no overall score yet, so it is not plotted.

Gray dots are the other priced models. The dark step line is the efficiency frontier: for a model under it, another model costs no more and scores at least as high.

See GPT-5.4 mini on the full price vs performance chart

Specification differences

Sourced differences are shown directly. Missing facts stay explicit instead of being inferred from a model name or family.

Cached-input rate

A missing cached-input rate falls back to the listed input rate only in the stated workload estimate.

GPT-5.4 mini

$0.075 per 1M cached input tokens

OpenAI pricing

Pareto 26.10 Preview

$0.25 per 1M cached input tokens

Unbiased direct API pricing

Reasoning profile

GPT-5.4 mini

Reasoning

Pareto 26.10 Preview

Reasoning

Weight access

GPT-5.4 mini

Proprietary

Pareto 26.10 Preview

Proprietary

License

GPT-5.4 mini

Proprietary

Pareto 26.10 Preview

Proprietary

Release date

GPT-5.4 mini

2026-03-17

Pareto 26.10 Preview

2026-10-01

If you already use one of these models

Deployment change
The models list different providers, so authentication, endpoint behavior, limits, and feature support may change.
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: $0.051 vs $0.1475. Cache-heavy agent loop: $0.075 vs $0.175.
Context tradeoff
A complete documented context comparison is not available.
Run the same representative tasks against both endpoints before changing production traffic.

Questions

Which is better, GPT-5.4 mini or Pareto 26.10 Preview?

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-5.4 mini or Pareto 26.10 Preview?

Pareto 26.10 Preview is not ranked on the public lane for coding, so no winner is named for coding.

Which is better for agentic tasks, GPT-5.4 mini or Pareto 26.10 Preview?

Pareto 26.10 Preview is not ranked on the public lane for agentic tasks, so no winner is named for agentic tasks.

Which costs less, GPT-5.4 mini or Pareto 26.10 Preview?

For the stated presets, chat costs $0.003 on GPT-5.4 mini and $0.00625 on Pareto 26.10 Preview; repository review costs $0.051 and $0.1475; the cache-heavy agent loop costs $0.075 and $0.175. Costs use the listed standard API rates.

Which has the larger context window, GPT-5.4 mini or Pareto 26.10 Preview?

A complete documented context-window comparison is not available.

Benchmark evidence

The full public result ledger is available for audit without forcing a wide desktop table onto a phone.

Browse raw public benchmark evidence25 rows

Agentic

  • Terminal-Bench 2.0

    GPT-5.4 mini60%
    Source
    Pareto 26.10 Preview—

    Not directly comparable

  • OSWorld-Verified

    GPT-5.4 mini72.1%
    Source
    Pareto 26.10 Preview—

    Not directly comparable

  • MCP Atlas

    GPT-5.4 mini57.7%
    Source
    Pareto 26.10 Preview—

    Not directly comparable

  • Toolathlon

    GPT-5.4 mini42.9%
    Source
    Pareto 26.10 Preview—

    Not directly comparable

  • τ²-bench results

    GPT-5.4 mini93.4%
    Source
    Pareto 26.10 Preview—

    Not directly comparable

  • Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals)

    GPT-5.4 mini54.7%
    Source
    Pareto 26.10 Preview—

    Not directly comparable

  • Terminal-Bench 4.0

    GPT-5.4 mini—
    Pareto 26.10 Preview50.80%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Coding

  • Terminal-Bench 2.0

    GPT-5.4 mini60.0%
    Source
    Pareto 26.10 Preview—

    Not directly comparable

  • Vibe Code Bench

    GPT-5.4 mini47.97%
    Source
    Pareto 26.10 Preview—

    Not directly comparable

  • FrontierCode 1.1 Main

    GPT-5.4 mini27.0%
    Source
    Pareto 26.10 Preview—

    Not directly comparable

  • LiveCodeBench (Vals)

    GPT-5.4 mini81.5%
    Source
    Pareto 26.10 Preview—

    Not directly comparable

  • SWE-bench (Vals)

    GPT-5.4 mini73.0%
    Source
    Pareto 26.10 Preview—

    Not directly comparable

  • DeepSWE

    GPT-5.4 mini—
    Pareto 26.10 Preview69.9%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Reasoning

  • ARC-AGI-1

    GPT-5.4 mini63.70%
    Source
    Pareto 26.10 Preview—

    Not directly comparable

  • ARC-AGI-2

    GPT-5.4 mini18.9%
    Source
    Pareto 26.10 Preview—

    Not directly comparable

Multimodal

  • MMMU-Pro

    GPT-5.4 mini76.6%
    Source
    Pareto 26.10 Preview—

    Not directly comparable

  • MMMU-Pro w/ Python

    GPT-5.4 mini78%
    Source
    Pareto 26.10 Preview—

    Not directly comparable

Knowledge

  • GPQA

    GPT-5.4 mini88%
    Source
    Pareto 26.10 Preview—

    Not directly comparable

  • HLE

    GPT-5.4 mini41.5%
    Source
    Pareto 26.10 Preview—

    Not directly comparable

  • HLE w/o tools

    GPT-5.4 mini28.2%
    Source
    Pareto 26.10 Preview—

    Not directly comparable

  • GPQA Diamond (Vals)

    GPT-5.4 mini83.1%
    Source
    Pareto 26.10 Preview—

    Not directly comparable

  • MMLU-Pro (Vals)

    GPT-5.4 mini84.6%
    Source
    Pareto 26.10 Preview—

    Not directly comparable

  • GPQA-D

    GPT-5.4 mini—
    Pareto 26.10 Preview92.4%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Math

  • FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)

    GPT-5.4 mini51.228%
    Source
    Pareto 26.10 Preview—

    Not directly comparable

  • FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)

    GPT-5.4 mini9.756%
    Source
    Pareto 26.10 Preview—

    Not directly comparable

25 public results · 0 shared

Watch GPT-5.4 mini vs Pareto 26.10 Preview

One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.

Read a sample issue

Join 7,000+ subscribers.

Last updated November 13, 2026