Head-to-head comparison across 2benchmark categories. Overall scores shown here use BenchLM's provisional ranking lane.
GPT-5.4 nano
59
Sakana Fugu Ultra
100
Pick Sakana Fugu Ultra if you want the stronger benchmark profile. GPT-5.4 nano only becomes the better choice if you want the cheaper token bill.
Agentic
+39.2 difference
Knowledge
+42.3 difference
GPT-5.4 nano
Sakana Fugu Ultra
$0.2 / $1.25
$5 / $30
191 t/s
N/A
3.64s
N/A
400K
1M
Pick Sakana Fugu Ultra if you want the stronger benchmark profile. GPT-5.4 nano only becomes the better choice if you want the cheaper token bill.
Sakana Fugu Ultra is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 100 to 59. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
Sakana Fugu Ultra's sharpest advantage is in knowledge, where it averages 95.5 against 53.2. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is Terminal-Bench 2.0, 46.3% to 82.1%.
Sakana Fugu Ultra 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. Sakana Fugu Ultra gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 400K for GPT-5.4 nano.
Sakana Fugu Ultra is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 100 to 59. The biggest single separator in this matchup is Terminal-Bench 2.0, where the scores are 46.3% and 82.1%.
Sakana Fugu Ultra has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 95.5 versus 53.2. Inside this category, GPQA is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Sakana Fugu Ultra has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 82.1 versus 42.9. Inside this category, Terminal-Bench 2.0 is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
For engineers, researchers, and the plain curious — a weekly brief on new models, ranking shifts, and pricing changes.
Free. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.