Model comparison
GPT-5.4 vs o1-pro
Head-to-head evidence from 2 shared benchmark results across 1 category. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: GPT-5.4 #8 (Supported); o1-pro #141 (Estimated). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. GPT-5.4 and o1-pro share 2 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 50 results are unique to GPT-5.4; 0 to o1-pro.
Updated July 22, 2026- Shared results
- 2
- GPT-5.4 only
- 50
- o1-pro only
- 0
- Comparable categories
- 1 / 8
Pick GPT-5.4 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. o1-pro only becomes the better choice if knowledge is the priority.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 2 shared benchmark results 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 is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 74.24 to 45.94. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
o1-pro is also the more expensive model on tokens at $150.00 input / $600.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $2.50 input / $15.00 output per 1M tokens for GPT-5.4. That is roughly 40.0x on output cost alone. GPT-5.4 gives you the larger context window at 1.05M, compared with 200K for o1-pro.
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 | o1-pro |
|---|---|---|---|
| Knowledge | GPT-5.457.6 | Margin→ 21.4 | o1-pro79.0 |
| Agentic | GPT-5.477.2 | MarginNo overlap | o1-proNot measured |
| Coding | GPT-5.457.7 | MarginNo overlap | o1-proNot measured |
| Math | GPT-5.442.5 | MarginNo overlap | o1-proNot measured |
| Multimodal | GPT-5.473.2 | MarginNo overlap | o1-proNot measured |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
GPQA
KnowledgeA 92.8%B 79%Winner: GPT-5.4Δ 13.8GPQA: GPT-5.4 scored 92.8%; o1-pro scored 79%. 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 | o1-pro | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | GPT-5.4$2.5 input / $15 output | o1-pro$150 input / $600 output | GPT-5.4 has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | GPT-5.474 tok/s | o1-proNot available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | GPT-5.4151.79 s | o1-proNot available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | GPT-5.41.05M | o1-pro200K | GPT-5.4 lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic17 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GPT-5.4 | o1-pro | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 75.1% | — | Not comparable |
| 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 |
Coding6 benchmarks
Reasoning2 benchmarks
Knowledgeo1-pro wins13 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GPT-5.4 | o1-pro | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQASource | 92.8% | 79% | GPT-5.4 leads |
| HLESource | 52.1% | — | Not comparable |
| HLE w/o toolsSource | 39.8% | — | Not comparable |
| GPQA-DSource | 92.8% | — | Not comparable |
| HealthBench HardSource | 40.1% | — | Not comparable |
| MedXpertQA (Text)Source | 59.6% | — | Not comparable |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 51.4% | 18.9% | GPT-5.4 leads |
| 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 |
Math2 benchmarks
Multimodal11 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GPT-5.4 | o1-pro | 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 |
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GPT-5.4 | o1-pro | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | 73.9% | — | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (2)
Which is better, GPT-5.4 or o1-pro?
GPT-5.4 is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 74.24 to 45.94. The biggest single separator in this matchup is GPQA, where the scores are 92.8% and 79%.
Which is better for knowledge tasks, GPT-5.4 or o1-pro?
o1-pro has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 79 versus 57.6. Inside this category, Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index 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.