Skip to main content
BenchLM
Advertise

Model comparison

GPT-5.4 nano vs GPT-5.5

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 29 shared benchmark results across 7 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

66.79/100
Margin
6.7pts
winning →
GPT-5.5
OpenAI
73.51/100
0 category wins4 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: GPT-5.4 nano #25 (Supported); GPT-5.5 #9 (Estimated). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. GPT-5.4 nano and GPT-5.5 share 29 comparable benchmark results. 4 of 8 categories are comparable. 0 results are unique to GPT-5.4 nano; 28 to GPT-5.5.

Updated July 22, 2026
Shared results
29
GPT-5.4 nano only
0
GPT-5.5 only
28
Comparable categories
4 / 8

Pick GPT-5.5 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. GPT-5.4 nano only becomes the better choice if you want the cheaper token bill.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 29 shared benchmark results across 7 evidence categories; 4 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.

Why this result

GPT-5.5 is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 73.51 to 66.79. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.

GPT-5.5's sharpest advantage is in agentic, where it averages 81.6 against 42.9. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is OSWorld-Verified, 39% to 78.7%.

GPT-5.5 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $5.00 input / $30.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.20 input / $1.25 output per 1M tokens for GPT-5.4 nano. That is roughly 24.0x on output cost alone. GPT-5.5 gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 400K for GPT-5.4 nano.

Category breakdown

Exact category averages are shown below. Not measured means BenchLM does not have enough sourced public coverage for that model and category.

Category scores and score margins for GPT-5.4 nano and GPT-5.5
CategoryGPT-5.4 nanoΔGPT-5.5
AgenticGPT-5.4 nano42.9Margin→ 38.7GPT-5.581.6
MathGPT-5.4 nano21.0Margin→ 26.6GPT-5.547.6
KnowledgeGPT-5.4 nano43.8Margin→ 14.0GPT-5.557.8
MultimodalGPT-5.4 nano66.1Margin→ 4.3GPT-5.570.4
CodingGPT-5.4 nanoNot measuredMarginNo overlapGPT-5.558.6
ReasoningGPT-5.4 nanoNot measuredMarginNo overlapGPT-5.585.0

Decisive benchmark drivers

The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.

More
A · GPT-5.4 nanoB · GPT-5.5

  1. OSWorld-Verified

    Agentic
    Source ↗
    A 39%B 78.7%
    Winner: GPT-5.5Δ 39.7
    OSWorld-Verified: GPT-5.4 nano scored 39%; GPT-5.5 scored 78.7%. GPT-5.5 wins this benchmark.

  2. Terminal-Bench 2.0

    Agentic
    Source ↗
    A 46.3%B 82%
    Winner: GPT-5.5Δ 35.7
    Terminal-Bench 2.0: GPT-5.4 nano scored 46.3%; GPT-5.5 scored 82%. GPT-5.5 wins this benchmark.

  3. FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)

    Math
    Source ↗
    A 6.250%B 35.400%
    Winner: GPT-5.5Δ 29.2
    FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4): GPT-5.4 nano scored 6.250%; GPT-5.5 scored 35.400%. GPT-5.5 wins this benchmark.

  4. FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)

    Math
    Source ↗
    A 25.860%B 51.700%
    Winner: GPT-5.5Δ 25.8
    FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3): GPT-5.4 nano scored 25.860%; GPT-5.5 scored 51.700%. GPT-5.5 wins this benchmark.

  5. MMMU-Pro

    Multimodal
    Source ↗
    A 66.1%B 81.2%
    Winner: GPT-5.5Δ 15.1
    MMMU-Pro: GPT-5.4 nano scored 66.1%; GPT-5.5 scored 81.2%. GPT-5.5 wins this benchmark.

Operational comparison

Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.

MetricGPT-5.4 nanoGPT-5.5Comparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensGPT-5.4 nano$0.2 input / $1.25 outputGPT-5.5$5 input / $30 outputGPT-5.4 nano has the lower combined listed price.
Generation speedtokens per secondGPT-5.4 nano191 tok/sGPT-5.5Not availableA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenGPT-5.4 nano3.64 sGPT-5.5Not availableA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensGPT-5.4 nano400KGPT-5.51MGPT-5.5 lists the larger context window.

Benchmark Deep Dive

AgenticGPT-5.5 wins
BenchmarkGPT-5.4 nanoGPT-5.5Result
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 46.3%82%GPT-5.5 leads
OSWorld-VerifiedSource 39%78.7%GPT-5.5 leads
MCP AtlasSource 56.1%75.3%GPT-5.5 leads
ToolathlonSource 35.5%55.6%GPT-5.5 leads
τ²-bench resultsSource 76%93.9%GPT-5.5 leads
AA Agentic IndexSource 27.5%44.9%GPT-5.5 leads
APEX-Agents-AASource 24.9%37.7%GPT-5.5 leads
GDPval-AASource 30.0%49.5%GPT-5.5 leads
GDPval-AASource 11001490GPT-5.5 leads
CyberGymSource —81.8%Not comparable
BrowseCompSource —84.4%Not comparable
Gert LabsSource —72.93%Not comparable
ResearchClawBenchSource —17.0%Not comparable
OSWorld 2.0Source —13.0%Not comparable
JobBenchSource —42.7%Not comparable
ExploitGymSource —13.4%Not comparable
AA BriefcaseSource —1154Not comparable
AA AutomationBenchSource —42.1%Not comparable
AA EnterpriseOps-GymSource —46.6%Not comparable
AA Harvey LABSource —86.3%Not comparable
AA ITBenchSource —45.8%Not comparable
AA Tau3 BankingSource —31.3%Not comparable
terminalBenchHardSource —60.6%Not comparable
aaTerminalBench21Source —84.3%Not comparable
Coding
BenchmarkGPT-5.4 nanoGPT-5.5Result
Vibe Code BenchSource 26.10%69.85%GPT-5.5 leads
AA Coding IndexSource 56.1%74.9%GPT-5.5 leads
AA-SciCodeSource 46.9%56.1%GPT-5.5 leads
SWE-bench ProSource —58.6%Not comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source —82.0%Not comparable
React Native EvalsSource —84.7%Not comparable
cursorBench31Source —59.2%Not comparable
cursorBench32Source —58.4%Not comparable
FrontierCode 1.1 MainSource —43.0%Not comparable
Reasoning
BenchmarkGPT-5.4 nanoGPT-5.5Result
AA-LCRSource 66.0%74.3%GPT-5.5 leads
CritPtSource 9.3%27.1%GPT-5.5 leads
MRCR v2 64K-128KSource —83.1%Not comparable
MRCR v2 128K-256KSource —87.5%Not comparable
ARC-AGI-2Source —85%Not comparable
KnowledgeGPT-5.5 wins
BenchmarkGPT-5.4 nanoGPT-5.5Result
GPQASource 82.8%93.6%GPT-5.5 leads
HLESource 37.7%52.2%GPT-5.5 leads
HLE w/o toolsSource 24.3%41.4%GPT-5.5 leads
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource 38.2%54.8%GPT-5.5 leads
AA-GPQA DiamondSource 81.7%93.5%GPT-5.5 leads
AA-HLESource 26.5%44.3%GPT-5.5 leads
AA-Omniscience IndexSource -29.5%20.1%GPT-5.5 leads
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource 25.4%56.9%GPT-5.5 leads
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource 73.6%85.5%GPT-5.4 nano leads
GPQA-DSource —93.6%Not comparable
MathGPT-5.5 wins
BenchmarkGPT-5.4 nanoGPT-5.5Result
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source 25.860%51.700%GPT-5.5 leads
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source 6.250%35.400%GPT-5.5 leads
FrontierMath (legacy)Source —51.7%Not comparable
MultimodalGPT-5.5 wins
BenchmarkGPT-5.4 nanoGPT-5.5Result
MMMU-ProSource 66.1%81.2%GPT-5.5 leads
MMMU-Pro w/ PythonSource 69.5%83.2%GPT-5.5 leads
AA-MMMU-ProSource 65.4%79.9%GPT-5.5 leads
OfficeQA ProSource —54.1%Not comparable
Design Arena WebsiteSource —1282Not comparable
Inst. Following
BenchmarkGPT-5.4 nanoGPT-5.5Result
AA-IFBenchSource 75.9%75.9%Tie
Frequently Asked Questions (5)

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

GPT-5.5 is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 73.51 to 66.79. The biggest single separator in this matchup is OSWorld-Verified, where the scores are 39% and 78.7%.

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

GPT-5.5 has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 57.8 versus 43.8. Inside this category, AA-Omniscience Index is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

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

GPT-5.5 has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 47.6 versus 21. Inside this category, FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4) is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

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

GPT-5.5 has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 81.6 versus 42.9. Inside this category, GDPval-AA is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for multimodal and grounded tasks, GPT-5.4 nano or GPT-5.5?

GPT-5.5 has the edge for multimodal and grounded tasks in this comparison, averaging 70.4 versus 66.1. Inside this category, MMMU-Pro is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Related Comparisons

Explore More

OpenAI Compare Pricing Methodology Find Your Best LLM Overall Rankings
Last updated: July 22, 2026

Choose a model with this week’s evidence

Join 2,000+ readers for ranking moves, pricing changes, and the claims that still need proof.

One email each week. Unsubscribe anytime.