Model comparison
GPT-5.4 vs MAI-Thinking-1
Head-to-head evidence from 4 shared benchmark results across 3 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: GPT-5.4 #8 (Supported); MAI-Thinking-1 unranked (Not scored). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. GPT-5.4 and MAI-Thinking-1 share 4 comparable benchmark results. 4 of 8 categories are comparable. 48 results are unique to GPT-5.4; 9 to MAI-Thinking-1.
Updated July 23, 2026- Shared results
- 4
- GPT-5.4 only
- 48
- MAI-Thinking-1 only
- 9
- Comparable categories
- 4 / 8
Treat this as a split decision. GPT-5.4 makes more sense if agentic is the priority or you need the larger 1.05M context window; MAI-Thinking-1 is the better fit if mathematics is the priority.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 4 shared benchmark results across 3 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-5.4 and MAI-Thinking-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 gives you the larger context window at 1.05M, compared with 256K for MAI-Thinking-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 | Δ | MAI-Thinking-1 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Math | GPT-5.442.5 | Margin→ 47.2 | MAI-Thinking-189.7 |
| Agentic | GPT-5.477.2 | Margin← 31.2 | MAI-Thinking-146.0 |
| Knowledge | GPT-5.457.6 | Margin→ 14.9 | MAI-Thinking-172.5 |
| Coding | GPT-5.457.7 | Margin→ 7.8 | MAI-Thinking-165.5 |
| Multimodal | GPT-5.473.2 | MarginNo overlap | MAI-Thinking-1Not measured |
| Inst. Following | GPT-5.4Not measured | MarginNo overlap | MAI-Thinking-185.0 |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
Terminal-Bench 2.0
AgenticA 75.1%B 46%Winner: GPT-5.4Δ 29.1Terminal-Bench 2.0: GPT-5.4 scored 75.1%; MAI-Thinking-1 scored 46%. GPT-5.4 wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
GPQA
KnowledgeA 92.8%B 84.2%Winner: GPT-5.4Δ 8.6GPQA: GPT-5.4 scored 92.8%; MAI-Thinking-1 scored 84.2%. GPT-5.4 wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
SWE-bench Pro
CodingA 57.7%B 52.8%Winner: GPT-5.4Δ 4.9SWE-bench Pro: GPT-5.4 scored 57.7%; MAI-Thinking-1 scored 52.8%. GPT-5.4 wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | GPT-5.4 | MAI-Thinking-1 | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | GPT-5.4$2.5 input / $15 output | MAI-Thinking-1Not available | A complete price comparison is not available. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | GPT-5.474 tok/s | MAI-Thinking-1Not available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | GPT-5.4151.79 s | MAI-Thinking-1Not available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | GPT-5.41.05M | MAI-Thinking-1256K | GPT-5.4 lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
AgenticGPT-5.4 wins17 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GPT-5.4 | MAI-Thinking-1 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 75.1% | 46% | GPT-5.4 leads |
| CyberGymSource | 79.0% | — | Not comparable |
| BrowseCompSource | 82.7% | — | Not comparable |
| OSWorld-VerifiedSource | 75% | — | Not comparable |
| MCP AtlasSource | 70.6% | — | Not comparable |
| ToolathlonSource | 54.6% | — | Not comparable |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | 87.1% | — | Not comparable |
| Claw-EvalSource | 60.3% | — | Not comparable |
| DeepSearchQASource | 73.6% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | 41.1% | — | Not comparable |
| APEX-Agents-AASource | 33.3% | — | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | 44.7% | — | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | 1395 | — | Not comparable |
| Gert LabsSource | 64.89% | — | Not comparable |
| ResearchClawBenchSource | 15.3% | — | Not comparable |
| JobBenchSource | 38.9% | — | Not comparable |
| ExploitGymSource | 6.0% | — | Not comparable |
CodingMAI-Thinking-1 wins8 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GPT-5.4 | MAI-Thinking-1 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| LiveCodeBench ProSource | 87.5% | — | Not comparable |
| SWE-bench ProSource | 57.7% | 52.8% | GPT-5.4 leads |
| React Native EvalsSource | 85.3% | — | Not comparable |
| Vibe Code BenchSource | 67.42% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Coding IndexSource | 71.0% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 56.6% | — | Not comparable |
| SWE-bench VerifiedSource | — | 73.5% | Not comparable |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | — | 46.0% | Not comparable |
Reasoning3 benchmarks
KnowledgeMAI-Thinking-1 wins15 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GPT-5.4 | MAI-Thinking-1 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQASource | 92.8% | 84.2% | GPT-5.4 leads |
| HLESource | 52.1% | — | Not comparable |
| HLE w/o toolsSource | 39.8% | — | Not comparable |
| GPQA-DSource | 92.8% | 84.2% | GPT-5.4 leads |
| HealthBench HardSource | 40.1% | — | Not comparable |
| MedXpertQA (Text)Source | 59.6% | — | Not comparable |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 51.4% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 92.0% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-HLESource | 41.6% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | 5.7% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 50.0% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 88.6% | — | Not comparable |
| HealthBench ProfessionalSource | 48.1% | — | Not comparable |
| MMLU-ProSource | — | 85% | Not comparable |
| SimpleQASource | — | 31% | Not comparable |
MathMAI-Thinking-1 wins5 benchmarks
Multimodal11 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GPT-5.4 | MAI-Thinking-1 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMMU-ProSource | 81.2% | — | Not comparable |
| OfficeQA ProSource | 53.2% | — | Not comparable |
| MMMU-Pro w/ PythonSource | 82.1% | — | Not comparable |
| CharXivSource | 82.8% | — | Not comparable |
| ERQASource | 65.4% | — | Not comparable |
| SimpleVQASource | 61.1% | — | Not comparable |
| ScreenSpot ProSource | 85.4% | — | Not comparable |
| ZeroBenchSource | 41.0% | — | Not comparable |
| MedXpertQA (MM)Source | 77.1% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-MMMU-ProSource | 78.4% | — | Not comparable |
| Design Arena WebsiteSource | 1250 | — | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (5)
Which is better, GPT-5.4 or MAI-Thinking-1?
GPT-5.4 and MAI-Thinking-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 knowledge tasks, GPT-5.4 or MAI-Thinking-1?
MAI-Thinking-1 has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 72.5 versus 57.6. Inside this category, GPQA is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for coding, GPT-5.4 or MAI-Thinking-1?
MAI-Thinking-1 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 65.5 versus 57.7. Inside this category, SWE-bench Pro is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for math, GPT-5.4 or MAI-Thinking-1?
MAI-Thinking-1 has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 89.7 versus 42.5. GPT-5.4 stays close enough that the answer can still flip depending on your workload.
Which is better for agentic tasks, GPT-5.4 or MAI-Thinking-1?
GPT-5.4 has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 77.2 versus 46. Inside this category, Terminal-Bench 2.0 is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Related Comparisons
Explore More
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.