Model comparison
GPT-5.4 nano vs Laguna M.1
Head-to-head evidence from 1 shared benchmark result across 1 category. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: GPT-5.4 nano #28 (Supported); Laguna M.1 unranked (Not scored). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. GPT-5.4 nano and Laguna M.1 share 1 comparable benchmark result. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 28 results are unique to GPT-5.4 nano; 4 to Laguna M.1.
Updated July 27, 2026- Shared results
- 1
- GPT-5.4 nano only
- 28
- Laguna M.1 only
- 4
- Comparable categories
- 1 / 8
Treat this as a split decision. GPT-5.4 nano makes more sense if you need the larger 400K context window; Laguna M.1 is the better fit if agentic is the priority.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 1 shared benchmark result across 1 evidence category; 1 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.
Why this result
GPT-5.4 nano and Laguna M.1 finish on the same BenchAlign overall score, so this is less about a single winner and more about where the edge shows up. The BenchAlign headline says tie; the benchmark table is where the real choice happens.
GPT-5.4 nano gives you the larger context window at 400K, compared with 256K for Laguna M.1.
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 | GPT-5.4 nano | Δ | Laguna M.1 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agentic | GPT-5.4 nano42.9 | Margin→ 2.9 | Laguna M.145.8 |
| Coding | GPT-5.4 nanoNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Laguna M.164.8 |
| Knowledge | GPT-5.4 nano43.8 | MarginNo overlap | Laguna M.1Not measured |
| Math | GPT-5.4 nano21.0 | MarginNo overlap | Laguna M.1Not measured |
| Multimodal | GPT-5.4 nano66.1 | MarginNo overlap | Laguna M.1Not measured |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
Terminal-Bench 2.0
AgenticA 46.3%B 45.8%Winner: GPT-5.4 nanoΔ 0.5Terminal-Bench 2.0: GPT-5.4 nano scored 46.3%; Laguna M.1 scored 45.8%. GPT-5.4 nano wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | GPT-5.4 nano | Laguna M.1 | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | GPT-5.4 nano$0.2 input / $1.25 output | Laguna M.1Not available | A complete price comparison is not available. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | GPT-5.4 nano191 tok/s | Laguna M.1Not available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | GPT-5.4 nano3.64 s | Laguna M.1Not available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | GPT-5.4 nano400K | Laguna M.1256K | GPT-5.4 nano lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
AgenticLaguna M.1 wins9 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GPT-5.4 nano | Laguna M.1 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 46.3% | 45.8% | GPT-5.4 nano leads |
| OSWorld-VerifiedSource | 39% | — | Not comparable |
| MCP AtlasSource | 56.1% | — | Not comparable |
| ToolathlonSource | 35.5% | — | Not comparable |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | 76% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | 27.5% | — | Not comparable |
| APEX-Agents-AASource | 24.9% | — | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | 30.1% | — | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | 1101 | — | Not comparable |
Coding7 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GPT-5.4 nano | Laguna M.1 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vibe Code BenchSource | 26.10% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Coding IndexSource | 56.1% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 46.9% | — | Not comparable |
| SWE-bench VerifiedSource | — | 74.6% | Not comparable |
| SWE MultilingualSource | — | 63.1% | Not comparable |
| SWE-bench ProSource | — | 49.2% | Not comparable |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | — | 45.8% | Not comparable |
Reasoning2 benchmarks
Knowledge9 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GPT-5.4 nano | Laguna M.1 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQASource | 82.8% | — | Not comparable |
| HLESource | 37.7% | — | Not comparable |
| HLE w/o toolsSource | 24.3% | — | Not comparable |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 38.2% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 81.7% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-HLESource | 26.5% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | -29.5% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 25.4% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 73.6% | — | Not comparable |
Math2 benchmarks
Multimodal3 benchmarks
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GPT-5.4 nano | Laguna M.1 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | 75.9% | — | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (2)
Which is better, GPT-5.4 nano or Laguna M.1?
GPT-5.4 nano and Laguna M.1 are tied on the BenchAlign overall score, so the right pick depends on which category matters most for your use case.
Which is better for agentic tasks, GPT-5.4 nano or Laguna M.1?
Laguna M.1 has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 45.8 versus 42.9. Inside this category, Terminal-Bench 2.0 is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Related Comparisons
Explore More
Know when it’s worth switching models
The model to choose, the cheaper alternative, and the release we would wait on.
One email each week. Unsubscribe anytime.