Skip to main content
Radar

Five or fewer confirmed AI changes, with original sources, on mornings when something changed.A free source-linked morning brief.

See the free Radar Brief
OpenAI logo
Model A
GPT-5.4 nano

OpenAI

62.19/100

Supported · Public rank #61

90% interval 51.173.3

GPT-5.4 nano vs GPT-5.5

Updated September 4, 2026. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. They are not guarantees for a specific workload.

OpenAI logo
Model B
GPT-5.5

OpenAI

73.27/100

Supported · Public rank #9

90% interval 71.075.6

Decision reading

GPT-5.5 has the higher public score estimate, 73.27 versus 62.19, but the 90% score intervals overlap. Treat that as a lead, not a settled winner.

18 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

Share on XLinkedInSocial cardCSVJSON

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.

  • Coding work

    Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks

    GPT-5.5

    GPT-5.5 leads on the public coding lane, 67.7 to 37.4, with Supported evidence for both models and non-overlapping 90% intervals.

    Confidence: stronger

  • Agentic work

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

    GPT-5.5

    GPT-5.5 leads on the public agentic lane, 63.9 to 37.3, with Supported evidence for both models and non-overlapping 90% intervals.

    Confidence: stronger

  • Long documents

    Prompts that approach the documented context limit

    GPT-5.5

    GPT-5.5 has the larger documented context window.

    Confidence: documented

Show secondary and unsupported calls
  • Chat turn cost

    1K fresh input + 500 output tokens

    GPT-5.4 nano

    GPT-5.4 nano 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 nano

    GPT-5.4 nano has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.

    Confidence: listed-rates

  • Repository review cost

    50K fresh input + 3K output tokens

    GPT-5.4 nano

    GPT-5.4 nano has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.

    Confidence: listed-rates

What is actually comparable

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

Shared results
18
GPT-5.4 nano only
0
GPT-5.5 only
20
Like-for-like categories
3 / 8

2 categories rest on Estimated evidence or different evidence sets. Those rows remain visible for coverage context but do not name a winner.

Category results, on a stated basis

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.

Agentic

Like-for-like
GPT-5.4 nano
37.3
Supported · #127/151
GPT-5.5
63.9
Supported · #15/151
Basis
BenchAlign lane · 6 vs 13 public rows
Reading
GPT-5.5 leads

Coding

Like-for-like
GPT-5.4 nano
37.4
Supported · #150/183
GPT-5.5
67.7
Supported · #8/183
Basis
BenchAlign lane · 3 vs 9 public rows
Reading
GPT-5.5 leads

Knowledge

Like-for-like
GPT-5.4 nano
48.5
Supported · #99/181
GPT-5.5
73.3
Supported · #7/181
Basis
BenchAlign lane · 5 vs 6 public rows
Reading
GPT-5.5 leads

Multimodal

Directional only
GPT-5.4 nano
23.8
#45/48
GPT-5.5
71.3
#19/48
Basis
Provisional lane · 1 vs 2 weighted rows
Reading
Directional only

Instruction following

Directional only
GPT-5.4 nano
92.9
#9/120
GPT-5.5
92.9
#7/120
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Directional only

Reasoning

Not comparable
GPT-5.4 nano
72.8
Unranked · 2 rankable rows
GPT-5.5
63.5
#15/22
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 2 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Math

Not comparable
GPT-5.4 nano
43.9
Unranked · 2 rankable rows
GPT-5.5
69.6
Unranked · 3 rankable rows
Basis
Provisional lane · 2 vs 2 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multilingual

Not comparable
GPT-5.4 nano
Not ranked
GPT-5.5
Not ranked
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
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.

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.

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.

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 nano
$0.00082
Fits in one request
GPT-5.5
$0.02
Fits in one request

GPT-5.4 nano has the lower modeled cost

Costs use the listed standard API rates.

Repository review

50K fresh input + 3K output tokens

GPT-5.4 nano
$0.01375
Fits in one request
GPT-5.5
$0.34
Fits in one request

GPT-5.4 nano 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 nano
$0.0205
Fits in one request
GPT-5.5
$0.5
Fits in one request

GPT-5.4 nano has the lower modeled cost

Costs use the listed standard API rates.

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 nano

$0.02 per 1M cached input tokens

OpenAI pricing

GPT-5.5

$0.5 per 1M cached input tokens

OpenAI pricing

Provider availability

GPT-5.4 nano

Generally Available · OpenAI Responses API

OpenAI model catalog

GPT-5.5

Not sourced

Reasoning profile

GPT-5.4 nano

Reasoning

GPT-5.5

Reasoning

Weight access

GPT-5.4 nano

Proprietary

GPT-5.5

Proprietary

License

GPT-5.4 nano

Proprietary

GPT-5.5

Proprietary

Release date

GPT-5.4 nano

2026-03-17

GPT-5.5

2026-04-23

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
GPT-5.5 has the higher public score estimate, 73.27 versus 62.19, but the 90% score intervals overlap.
Workload cost
Repository review: $0.01375 vs $0.34. Cache-heavy agent loop: $0.0205 vs $0.5.
Context tradeoff
GPT-5.5 has the larger documented window (1M).

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 evidence38 rows

Agentic

  • Terminal-Bench 2.0

    GPT-5.4 nano46.3%
    Source
    GPT-5.582%
    Source

    GPT-5.5 leads this result

  • OSWorld-Verified

    GPT-5.4 nano39%
    Source
    GPT-5.578.7%
    Source

    GPT-5.5 leads this result

  • MCP Atlas

    GPT-5.4 nano56.1%
    Source
    GPT-5.575.3%
    Source

    GPT-5.5 leads this result

  • Toolathlon

    GPT-5.4 nano35.5%
    Source
    GPT-5.555.6%
    Source

    GPT-5.5 leads this result

  • τ²-bench results

    GPT-5.4 nano92.5%
    Source
    GPT-5.598%
    Source

    GPT-5.5 leads this result

  • Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals)

    GPT-5.4 nano41.6%
    Source
    GPT-5.576.4%
    Source

    GPT-5.5 leads this result

  • CyberGym

    GPT-5.4 nano
    GPT-5.581.8%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • BrowseComp

    GPT-5.4 nano
    GPT-5.584.4%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • Gert Labs

    GPT-5.4 nano
    GPT-5.572.93%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • ResearchClawBench

    GPT-5.4 nano
    GPT-5.517.0%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • OSWorld 2.0

    GPT-5.4 nano
    GPT-5.513.0%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • JobBench

    GPT-5.4 nano
    GPT-5.542.7%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • ExploitGym

    GPT-5.4 nano
    GPT-5.513.4%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Coding

  • Vibe Code Bench

    Shared source
    GPT-5.4 nano26.10%
    GPT-5.569.85%

    GPT-5.5 leads this result

  • LiveCodeBench (Vals)

    GPT-5.4 nano84.0%
    Source
    GPT-5.585.3%
    Source

    GPT-5.5 leads this result

  • SWE-bench (Vals)

    GPT-5.4 nano69.8%
    Source
    GPT-5.582.6%
    Source

    GPT-5.5 leads this result

  • SWE-bench Pro

    GPT-5.4 nano
    GPT-5.558.6%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • Terminal-Bench 2.0

    GPT-5.4 nano
    GPT-5.582.0%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • React Native Evals

    GPT-5.4 nano
    GPT-5.584.7%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • cursorBench31

    GPT-5.4 nano
    GPT-5.559.2%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • cursorBench32

    GPT-5.4 nano
    GPT-5.558.4%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • FrontierCode 1.1 Main

    GPT-5.4 nano
    GPT-5.543.0%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Reasoning

  • MRCR v2 64K-128K

    GPT-5.4 nano
    GPT-5.583.1%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • MRCR v2 128K-256K

    GPT-5.4 nano
    GPT-5.587.5%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • ARC-AGI-2

    GPT-5.4 nano
    GPT-5.585%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • ARC-AGI-3

    GPT-5.4 nano
    GPT-5.50.4%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Knowledge

  • GPQA

    GPT-5.4 nano82.8%
    Source
    GPT-5.593.6%
    Source

    GPT-5.5 leads this result

  • HLE

    GPT-5.4 nano37.7%
    Source
    GPT-5.552.2%
    Source

    GPT-5.5 leads this result

  • HLE w/o tools

    GPT-5.4 nano24.3%
    Source
    GPT-5.541.4%
    Source

    GPT-5.5 leads this result

  • GPQA Diamond (Vals)

    GPT-5.4 nano77.5%
    Source
    GPT-5.593.2%
    Source

    GPT-5.5 leads this result

  • MMLU-Pro (Vals)

    GPT-5.4 nano77.2%
    Source
    GPT-5.588.1%
    Source

    GPT-5.5 leads this result

  • GPQA-D

    GPT-5.4 nano
    GPT-5.593.6%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Math

  • FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)

    Shared source
    GPT-5.4 nano25.860%
    GPT-5.551.700%

    GPT-5.5 leads this result

  • FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)

    Shared source
    GPT-5.4 nano6.250%
    GPT-5.535.400%

    GPT-5.5 leads this result

  • FrontierMath (legacy)

    GPT-5.4 nano
    GPT-5.551.7%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Multimodal

  • MMMU-Pro

    GPT-5.4 nano66.1%
    Source
    GPT-5.581.2%
    Source

    GPT-5.5 leads this result

  • MMMU-Pro w/ Python

    GPT-5.4 nano69.5%
    Source
    GPT-5.583.2%
    Source

    GPT-5.5 leads this result

  • OfficeQA Pro

    GPT-5.4 nano
    GPT-5.554.1%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Frequently asked questions

Which is better, GPT-5.4 nano or GPT-5.5?

GPT-5.5 has the higher public score estimate, 73.27 versus 62.19, but the 90% score intervals overlap. The higher estimate is not a decisive winner because the uncertainty ranges overlap.

Which is better for coding, GPT-5.4 nano or GPT-5.5?

GPT-5.5 leads the public coding lane, 67.7 to 37.4, with Supported evidence for both models and non-overlapping 90% intervals.

Which is better for agentic tasks, GPT-5.4 nano or GPT-5.5?

GPT-5.5 leads the public agentic tasks lane, 63.9 to 37.3, with Supported evidence for both models and non-overlapping 90% intervals.

Which costs less, GPT-5.4 nano or GPT-5.5?

For the stated presets, chat costs $0.00082 on GPT-5.4 nano and $0.02 on GPT-5.5; repository review costs $0.01375 and $0.34; the cache-heavy agent loop costs $0.0205 and $0.5. Costs use the listed standard API rates.

Which has the larger context window, GPT-5.4 nano or GPT-5.5?

GPT-5.5 has the larger documented context window: 1M, compared with 400K.

Related comparisons

Last updated September 4, 2026

Watch GPT-5.4 nano vs GPT-5.5

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

Read a sample issue

Join 2,000+ readers.