Skip to main content
BenchLM
Data

GPT-5.4 vs GPT-5.4 Pro

Updated October 20, 2026. Rank says GPT-5.4 Pro is ahead. Price, access, and your workload can each overturn that. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. This is a same-family comparison, so migration details appear when the source data supports them.

Share or export
Share on XLinkedInAPI/MCP

Decision reading

GPT-5.4 Pro has the higher public point estimate, 68.69 versus 66.73. Their conditional score ranges overlap. These ranges do not establish rank confidence. 7 results are shared. Category rows resting on Estimated evidence or different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.

Model A
OpenAI logo

OpenAI

66.73/100

Supported · Public rank #30

90% interval 62.3–71.2

Model B
OpenAI logo

OpenAI

68.69/100

Estimated · Public rank #22

Conditional range 54.3–83.0

Shared results
7
GPT-5.4 only
36
GPT-5.4 Pro only
4
Like-for-like categories
0 / 8
Supported: GPT-5.4 · Estimated: GPT-5.4 Pro. Conditional ranges do not establish rank confidence.How the comparison works

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.

  • Chat turn cost

    1K fresh input + 500 output tokens

    GPT-5.4

    GPT-5.4 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

    GPT-5.4 has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. GPT-5.4 Pro has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.

    Confidence: rate-fallback
Show secondary and unsupported calls
  • Repository review cost

    50K fresh input + 3K output tokens

    GPT-5.4

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

    Confidence: listed-rates
  • Coding work

    Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks

    Not enough matched evidence

    GPT-5.4 Pro is not ranked on the public lane for coding, so no winner is named for coding.

    Confidence: limited
  • Agentic work

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

    Not enough matched evidence

    GPT-5.4 Pro is not ranked on the public lane for agentic, so no winner is named for agentic.

    Confidence: limited
  • Long documents

    Prompts that approach the documented context limit

    No clear pick

    The documented context windows are equal.

    Confidence: documented

Which one for a specific job

Choose a job from the LLM Selector's task catalog to see the category row it rests on, under the same basis rules as the table below. A directional row stays directional; choosing a job never creates a winner.

The same task catalog as the LLM Selector. Each job names the evidence surface it rests on; nothing here adds a new score.

47.7GPT-5.4—GPT-5.4 Pro

Not comparable · BenchAlign v5.8

The coding row is not comparable on the public lane: at least one model is not measured or not ranked there.

Coding scores combine specific tasks and setups. Match the editor, harness, and effort to your workflow.

Same basis rules as the category table below

What is actually comparable

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

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.

Bars run 0–100 on each benchmark’s normalized display scale

Category results, on a stated basis

Each row shows the public-lane category score for both models: the BenchAlign v5.8 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

Not comparable
GPT-5.4
52.2
Supported · #45/131
GPT-5.4 Pro
Not ranked
Basis
BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 15 vs 1 public rows
Reading
Not comparable

Coding

Not comparable
GPT-5.4
47.7
Supported · #49/152
GPT-5.4 Pro
Not ranked
Basis
BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 6 vs 0 public rows
Reading
Not comparable

Reasoning

Not comparable
GPT-5.4
64.2
#20/27
GPT-5.4 Pro
78.1
Unranked · 3 rankable rows
Basis
Provisional lane · 2 vs 1 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multimodal

Not comparable
GPT-5.4
73.1
#31/55
GPT-5.4 Pro
Not ranked
Basis
Provisional lane · 3 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Knowledge

Not comparable
GPT-5.4
69.2
Supported · #21/187
GPT-5.4 Pro
Not ranked
Basis
BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 7 vs 4 public rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multilingual

Not comparable
GPT-5.4
Not ranked
GPT-5.4 Pro
Not ranked
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Instruction following

Not comparable
GPT-5.4
90.7
#23/149
GPT-5.4 Pro
Not ranked
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Math

Not comparable
GPT-5.4
82.0
Unranked · 2 rankable rows
GPT-5.4 Pro
86.5
Unranked · 4 rankable rows
Basis
Provisional lane · 2 vs 2 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Ranks count the models scored in each category’s lane, so the agentic, coding, and knowledge denominators (BenchAlign v5.8) differ from the provisional-lane categories. Unranked scores sit on the provisional lane’s scale but never name a winner. Like-for-like rows within 0.5 points read as a practical tie.

Supported evidence per lane · bars run 0–100Methodology

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
$0.01
Fits in one request
GPT-5.4 Pro
$0.12
Fits in one request

GPT-5.4 has the lower modeled cost

Costs use the listed standard API rates.

Repository review

50K fresh input + 3K output tokens

GPT-5.4
$0.17
Fits in one request
GPT-5.4 Pro
$2.04
Fits in one request

GPT-5.4 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
$0.25
Fits in one request
GPT-5.4 Pro
$8.40
Fits in one request
Cached input priced at the published list-input rate

GPT-5.4 has the lower modeled cost

GPT-5.4 Pro has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.

Cached input falls back to the list input rate only where a cached rate is unpublished

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

$0.25 per 1M cached input tokens

OpenAI pricing

GPT-5.4 Pro

Not published

OpenAI pricing

Provider availability

GPT-5.4

Not sourced

GPT-5.4 Pro

Generally Available · OpenAI Responses API

OpenAI model catalog

Reasoning profile

GPT-5.4

Reasoning

GPT-5.4 Pro

Reasoning

Weight access

GPT-5.4

Proprietary

GPT-5.4 Pro

Proprietary

License

GPT-5.4

Proprietary

GPT-5.4 Pro

Proprietary

Release date

GPT-5.4

2026-03-05

GPT-5.4 Pro

2026-03-05

If you are choosing between sibling variants

Deployment change
Both entries list OpenAI as the provider. Confirm endpoint, model ID, limits, and feature support before switching.
Quality signal
GPT-5.4 Pro has the higher public point estimate, 68.69 versus 66.73. Their conditional score ranges overlap. These ranges do not establish rank confidence.
Workload cost
Repository review: $0.17 vs $2.04. Cache-heavy agent loop: $0.25 vs $8.40.
Context tradeoff
Both models list 1.05M.
Run the same representative tasks against both endpoints before changing production traffic.

Questions

Which is better, GPT-5.4 or GPT-5.4 Pro?

GPT-5.4 Pro has the higher public point estimate, 68.69 versus 66.73. Their conditional score ranges overlap. These ranges do not establish rank confidence. The page therefore keeps the decision tied to the specific documented workload.

Which is better for coding, GPT-5.4 or GPT-5.4 Pro?

GPT-5.4 Pro is not ranked on the public lane for coding, so no winner is named for coding.

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

GPT-5.4 Pro is not ranked on the public lane for agentic tasks, so no winner is named for agentic tasks.

Which costs less, GPT-5.4 or GPT-5.4 Pro?

For the stated presets, chat costs $0.01 on GPT-5.4 and $0.12 on GPT-5.4 Pro; repository review costs $0.17 and $2.04; the cache-heavy agent loop costs $0.25 and $8.40. GPT-5.4 Pro has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.

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

Both models list the same context window, 1.05M.

Benchmark evidence

The full public result ledger is available for audit without forcing a wide desktop table onto a phone.

Browse raw public benchmark evidence47 rows

Agentic

  • Terminal-Bench 2.0

    GPT-5.475.1%
    Source
    GPT-5.4 Pro—

    Not directly comparable

  • CyberGym

    GPT-5.479.0%
    Source
    GPT-5.4 Pro—

    Not directly comparable

  • BrowseComp

    Shared source
    GPT-5.482.7%
    GPT-5.4 Pro89.3%

    GPT-5.4 Pro leads this result

  • OSWorld-Verified

    GPT-5.475%
    Source
    GPT-5.4 Pro—

    Not directly comparable

  • MCP Atlas

    GPT-5.470.6%
    Source
    GPT-5.4 Pro—

    Not directly comparable

  • Toolathlon

    GPT-5.454.6%
    Source
    GPT-5.4 Pro—

    Not directly comparable

  • τ²-bench results

    GPT-5.498.9%
    Source
    GPT-5.4 Pro—

    Not directly comparable

  • Claw-Eval

    GPT-5.460.3%
    Source
    GPT-5.4 Pro—

    Not directly comparable

  • DeepSearchQA

    GPT-5.473.6%
    Source
    GPT-5.4 Pro—

    Not directly comparable

  • Gert Labs

    GPT-5.464.89%
    Source
    GPT-5.4 Pro—

    Not directly comparable

  • ResearchClawBench

    GPT-5.415.3%
    Source
    GPT-5.4 Pro—

    Not directly comparable

  • JobBench

    GPT-5.438.9%
    Source
    GPT-5.4 Pro—

    Not directly comparable

  • ExploitGym

    GPT-5.46.0%
    Source
    GPT-5.4 Pro—

    Not directly comparable

  • ApprenticeBench

    GPT-5.411%
    Source
    GPT-5.4 Pro—

    Not directly comparable

  • MazeBench

    GPT-5.40%
    Source
    GPT-5.4 Pro—

    Not directly comparable

Coding

  • LiveCodeBench Pro

    GPT-5.487.5%
    Source
    GPT-5.4 Pro—

    Not directly comparable

  • SWE-bench Pro

    GPT-5.457.7%
    Source
    GPT-5.4 Pro—

    Not directly comparable

  • React Native Evals

    GPT-5.485.3%
    Source
    GPT-5.4 Pro—

    Not directly comparable

  • Terminal-Bench 2.0

    GPT-5.475.1%
    Source
    GPT-5.4 Pro—

    Not directly comparable

  • Vibe Code Bench

    GPT-5.467.42%
    Source
    GPT-5.4 Pro—

    Not directly comparable

  • PostTrainBench v1.1

    GPT-5.419.0%
    Source
    GPT-5.4 Pro—

    Not directly comparable

Reasoning

  • ARC-AGI-2

    GPT-5.474.0%
    Source
    GPT-5.4 Pro83.3%
    Source

    GPT-5.4 Pro leads this result

  • ARC-AGI-3

    GPT-5.40.2%
    Source
    GPT-5.4 Pro—

    Not directly comparable

  • GPT-5.493.67%
    GPT-5.4 Pro94.50%

    GPT-5.4 Pro leads this result

Multimodal

  • ParseBench

    GPT-5.462.23%
    Source
    GPT-5.4 Pro—

    Not directly comparable

  • MMMU-Pro

    GPT-5.481.2%
    Source
    GPT-5.4 Pro—

    Not directly comparable

  • OfficeQA Pro

    GPT-5.453.2%
    Source
    GPT-5.4 Pro—

    Not directly comparable

  • MMMU-Pro w/ Python

    GPT-5.482.1%
    Source
    GPT-5.4 Pro—

    Not directly comparable

  • CharXiv

    GPT-5.482.8%
    Source
    GPT-5.4 Pro—

    Not directly comparable

  • ERQA

    GPT-5.465.4%
    Source
    GPT-5.4 Pro—

    Not directly comparable

  • SimpleVQA

    GPT-5.461.1%
    Source
    GPT-5.4 Pro—

    Not directly comparable

  • ScreenSpot Pro

    GPT-5.485.4%
    Source
    GPT-5.4 Pro—

    Not directly comparable

  • ZeroBench

    GPT-5.441.0%
    Source
    GPT-5.4 Pro—

    Not directly comparable

  • MedXpertQA (MM)

    GPT-5.477.1%
    Source
    GPT-5.4 Pro—

    Not directly comparable

Knowledge

  • GPQA

    GPT-5.492.8%
    Source
    GPT-5.4 Pro—

    Not directly comparable

  • HLE

    GPT-5.452.1%
    Source
    GPT-5.4 Pro58.7%
    Source

    GPT-5.4 Pro leads this result

  • HLE w/o tools

    Shared source
    GPT-5.439.8%
    GPT-5.4 Pro42.7%

    GPT-5.4 Pro leads this result

  • GPQA-D

    GPT-5.492.8%
    Source
    GPT-5.4 Pro—

    Not directly comparable

  • HealthBench Hard

    GPT-5.440.1%
    Source
    GPT-5.4 Pro—

    Not directly comparable

  • MedXpertQA (Text)

    GPT-5.459.6%
    Source
    GPT-5.4 Pro—

    Not directly comparable

  • HealthBench Professional

    GPT-5.448.1%
    Source
    GPT-5.4 Pro—

    Not directly comparable

  • FrontierScience

    GPT-5.4—
    GPT-5.4 Pro36.7%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • FrontierScience Research

    GPT-5.4—
    GPT-5.4 Pro36.7%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Math

  • FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)

    Shared source
    GPT-5.478.596%
    GPT-5.4 Pro82.456%

    GPT-5.4 Pro leads this result

  • FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)

    Shared source
    GPT-5.449.000%
    GPT-5.4 Pro58.537%

    GPT-5.4 Pro leads this result

  • IPhO 2025 (Theory)

    GPT-5.4—
    GPT-5.4 Pro93.5%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • FrontierMath (legacy)

    GPT-5.4—
    GPT-5.4 Pro50%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

47 public results · 7 shared

Watch GPT-5.4 vs GPT-5.4 Pro

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

Read a sample issue

Join 5,600+ readers.

Last updated October 20, 2026