Model comparison
GPT-5.4 vs Step 3.7 Flash
Head-to-head evidence from 27 shared benchmark results across 6 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Verified leaderboard positions: GPT-5.4 #10; Step 3.7 Flash unranked
BenchAlign evidence: GPT-5.4 supported; Step 3.7 Flash estimated. Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. GPT-5.4 and Step 3.7 Flash share 27 comparable benchmark results. 2 of 8 categories are comparable. 27 results are unique to GPT-5.4; 3 to Step 3.7 Flash.
Updated July 16, 2026- Shared results
- 27
- GPT-5.4 only
- 27
- Step 3.7 Flash only
- 3
- Comparable categories
- 2 / 8
Pick GPT-5.4 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 27 shared benchmark results across 6 evidence categories; 2 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 provisional aggregate, 86 to 57. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
GPT-5.4's sharpest advantage is in agentic, where it averages 77.2 against 66.4. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is Terminal-Bench 2.0, 75.1% to 59.5%.
GPT-5.4 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $2.50 input / $15.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.20 input / $1.15 output per 1M tokens for Step 3.7 Flash. That is roughly 13.0x on output cost alone. GPT-5.4 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 | Δ | Step 3.7 Flash |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agentic | GPT-5.477.2 | Margin← 10.8 | Step 3.7 Flash66.4 |
| Coding | GPT-5.457.7 | Margin← 1.4 | Step 3.7 Flash56.3 |
| Knowledge | GPT-5.457.6 | MarginNo overlap | Step 3.7 FlashNot measured |
| Math | GPT-5.442.5 | MarginNo overlap | Step 3.7 FlashNot measured |
| Multimodal | GPT-5.473.2 | MarginNo overlap | Step 3.7 FlashNot measured |
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 59.5%Winner: GPT-5.4Δ 15.6Terminal-Bench 2.0: GPT-5.4 scored 75.1%; Step 3.7 Flash scored 59.5%. GPT-5.4 wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
BrowseComp
AgenticA 82.7%B 75.8%Winner: GPT-5.4Δ 6.9BrowseComp: GPT-5.4 scored 82.7%; Step 3.7 Flash scored 75.8%. GPT-5.4 wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
SWE-bench Pro
CodingA 57.7%B 56.3%Winner: GPT-5.4Δ 1.4SWE-bench Pro: GPT-5.4 scored 57.7%; Step 3.7 Flash scored 56.3%. 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 | Step 3.7 Flash | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | GPT-5.4$2.5 input / $15 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-5.474 tok/s | Step 3.7 FlashNot available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | GPT-5.4151.79 s | Step 3.7 FlashNot available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | GPT-5.41.05M | Step 3.7 Flash256K | GPT-5.4 lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
AgenticGPT-5.4 wins18 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GPT-5.4 | Step 3.7 Flash | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 75.1% | 59.5% | GPT-5.4 leads |
| CyberGymSource | 79.0% | — | Not comparable |
| BrowseCompSource | 82.7% | 75.8% | GPT-5.4 leads |
| OSWorld-VerifiedSource | 75% | — | Not comparable |
| MCP AtlasSource | 70.6% | — | Not comparable |
| ToolathlonSource | 54.6% | 49.5% | GPT-5.4 leads |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | 87.1% | 98.5% | Step 3.7 Flash leads |
| Claw-EvalSource | 60.3% | 67.1% | Step 3.7 Flash leads |
| DeepSearchQASource | 73.6% | 92.8% | Step 3.7 Flash leads |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | 41.1% | 21.5% | GPT-5.4 leads |
| APEX-Agents-AASource | 33.3% | 14.8% | GPT-5.4 leads |
| GDPval-AASource | 44.7% | 25.9% | GPT-5.4 leads |
| GDPval-AASource | 1395 | 1017 | GPT-5.4 leads |
| Gert LabsSource | 64.89% | 51.57% | GPT-5.4 leads |
| ResearchClawBenchSource | 15.3% | — | Not comparable |
| JobBenchSource | 38.9% | — | Not comparable |
| ExploitGymSource | 6.0% | — | Not comparable |
| HLE w/ toolsSource | — | 47.2% | Not comparable |
CodingGPT-5.4 wins8 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GPT-5.4 | Step 3.7 Flash | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| LiveCodeBench ProSource | 87.5% | — | Not comparable |
| SWE-bench ProSource | 57.7% | 56.3% | GPT-5.4 leads |
| React Native EvalsSource | 85.3% | — | Not comparable |
| Vibe Code BenchSource | 67.42% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Coding IndexSource | 71.0% | 39.6% | GPT-5.4 leads |
| Terminal-Bench HardSource | 57.6% | 35.6% | GPT-5.4 leads |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 56.6% | 40.0% | GPT-5.4 leads |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | — | 59.5% | Not comparable |
Reasoning2 benchmarks
Knowledge13 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GPT-5.4 | Step 3.7 Flash | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQASource | 92.8% | — | Not comparable |
| 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% | 30.3% | GPT-5.4 leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 92.0% | 80.9% | GPT-5.4 leads |
| AA-HLESource | 41.6% | 19.9% | GPT-5.4 leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | 5.7% | -37.5% | GPT-5.4 leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 50.0% | 25.4% | GPT-5.4 leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 88.6% | 84.4% | Step 3.7 Flash leads |
| HealthBench ProfessionalSource | 48.1% | — | Not comparable |
Math2 benchmarks
Multimodal13 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GPT-5.4 | Step 3.7 Flash | 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% | 79.2% | Step 3.7 Flash leads |
| ScreenSpot ProSource | 85.4% | — | Not comparable |
| ZeroBenchSource | 41.0% | — | Not comparable |
| MedXpertQA (MM)Source | 77.1% | — | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | 1672 | — | Not comparable |
| AA-MMMU-ProSource | 78.4% | 75.3% | GPT-5.4 leads |
| Design Arena WebsiteSource | 1254 | 1218 | GPT-5.4 leads |
| V*Source | — | 95.3% | Not comparable |
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GPT-5.4 | Step 3.7 Flash | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | 73.9% | 67.3% | GPT-5.4 leads |
Frequently Asked Questions (3)
Which is better, GPT-5.4 or Step 3.7 Flash?
GPT-5.4 is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 86 to 57. The biggest single separator in this matchup is Terminal-Bench 2.0, where the scores are 75.1% and 59.5%.
Which is better for coding, GPT-5.4 or Step 3.7 Flash?
GPT-5.4 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 57.7 versus 56.3. Inside this category, AA Coding Index is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for agentic tasks, GPT-5.4 or Step 3.7 Flash?
GPT-5.4 has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 77.2 versus 66.4. Inside this category, GDPval-AA 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.