Model comparison
GPT-5.4 Pro vs Step 3.7 Flash
Head-to-head evidence from 2 shared benchmark results across 2 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
BenchAlign evidence: GPT-5.4 Pro estimated; Step 3.7 Flash estimated. Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. GPT-5.4 Pro and Step 3.7 Flash share 2 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 10 results are unique to GPT-5.4 Pro; 28 to Step 3.7 Flash.
Updated July 16, 2026- Shared results
- 2
- GPT-5.4 Pro only
- 10
- Step 3.7 Flash only
- 28
- Comparable categories
- 1 / 8
Pick GPT-5.4 Pro if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Step 3.7 Flash only becomes the better choice if you want the cheaper token bill.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 2 shared benchmark results across 2 evidence categories; 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 Pro is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 83 to 57. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
GPT-5.4 Pro's sharpest advantage is in agentic, where it averages 89.3 against 66.4. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is BrowseComp, 89.3% to 75.8%.
GPT-5.4 Pro is also the more expensive model on tokens at $30.00 input / $180.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.20 input / $1.15 output per 1M tokens for Step 3.7 Flash. That is roughly 156.5x on output cost alone. GPT-5.4 Pro gives you the larger context window at 1.05M, compared with 256K for Step 3.7 Flash.
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 Pro | Δ | Step 3.7 Flash |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agentic | GPT-5.4 Pro89.3 | Margin← 22.9 | Step 3.7 Flash66.4 |
| Coding | GPT-5.4 ProNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Step 3.7 Flash56.3 |
| Reasoning | GPT-5.4 Pro83.3 | MarginNo overlap | Step 3.7 FlashNot measured |
| Knowledge | GPT-5.4 Pro48.4 | MarginNo overlap | Step 3.7 FlashNot measured |
| Math | GPT-5.4 Pro46.9 | MarginNo overlap | Step 3.7 FlashNot measured |
| Multimodal | GPT-5.4 Pro94.0 | MarginNo overlap | Step 3.7 FlashNot measured |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
BrowseComp
AgenticA 89.3%B 75.8%Winner: GPT-5.4 ProΔ 13.5BrowseComp: GPT-5.4 Pro scored 89.3%; Step 3.7 Flash scored 75.8%. GPT-5.4 Pro wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | GPT-5.4 Pro | Step 3.7 Flash | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | GPT-5.4 Pro$30 input / $180 output | Step 3.7 Flash$0.2 input / $1.15 output | Step 3.7 Flash has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | GPT-5.4 Pro74 tok/s | Step 3.7 FlashNot available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | GPT-5.4 Pro151.79 s | Step 3.7 FlashNot available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | GPT-5.4 Pro1.05M | Step 3.7 Flash256K | GPT-5.4 Pro lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
AgenticGPT-5.4 Pro wins12 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GPT-5.4 Pro | Step 3.7 Flash | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| BrowseCompSource | 89.3% | 75.8% | GPT-5.4 Pro leads |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | — | 59.5% | Not comparable |
| DeepSearchQASource | — | 92.8% | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | — | 25.9% | Not comparable |
| ToolathlonSource | — | 49.5% | Not comparable |
| Claw-EvalSource | — | 67.1% | Not comparable |
| HLE w/ toolsSource | — | 47.2% | Not comparable |
| Gert LabsSource | — | 51.57% | Not comparable |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | — | 21.5% | Not comparable |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | — | 98.5% | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | — | 1017 | Not comparable |
| APEX-Agents-AASource | — | 14.8% | Not comparable |
Coding5 benchmarks
Reasoning3 benchmarks
Knowledge10 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GPT-5.4 Pro | Step 3.7 Flash | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| HLESource | 58.7% | — | Not comparable |
| FrontierScienceSource | 36.7% | — | Not comparable |
| FrontierScience ResearchSource | 36.7% | — | Not comparable |
| HLE w/o toolsSource | 42.7% | — | Not comparable |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | — | 30.3% | Not comparable |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | — | 80.9% | Not comparable |
| AA-HLESource | — | 19.9% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | — | -37.5% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | — | 25.4% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | — | 84.4% | Not comparable |
Math4 benchmarks
Multimodal5 benchmarks
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GPT-5.4 Pro | Step 3.7 Flash | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | — | 67.3% | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (2)
Which is better, GPT-5.4 Pro or Step 3.7 Flash?
GPT-5.4 Pro is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 83 to 57. The biggest single separator in this matchup is BrowseComp, where the scores are 89.3% and 75.8%.
Which is better for agentic tasks, GPT-5.4 Pro or Step 3.7 Flash?
GPT-5.4 Pro has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 89.3 versus 66.4. Inside this category, BrowseComp is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Related Comparisons
Explore More
The AI models change fast. We track them for you.
A weekly brief for engineers and researchers covering new models, ranking shifts, and pricing changes.
Free. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.