Skip to main content
Radar

Five or fewer confirmed AI changes, with original sources, on mornings when something changed.A free source-linked morning brief.

See the free Radar Brief
OpenAI logo
Model A
GPT-5.5 Pro

OpenAI

63.07/100

Estimated · Public rank #56

90% interval 51.674.6

GPT-5.5 Pro vs GPT-OSS 120B

Updated September 4, 2026. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. They are not guarantees for a specific workload.

OpenAI logo
Model B
GPT-OSS 120B

OpenAI

49.26/100

Supported · Public rank #144

90% interval 39.658.9

Decision reading

The public evidence has no benchmark result shared by both models, so it does not support a quality verdict. Use the documented cost, context, and runtime rows instead.

0 results are shared. Category rows resting on Estimated evidence or different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.

Share or export

Share on XLinkedInSocial cardCSVJSON

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.

  • Long documents

    Prompts that approach the documented context limit

    GPT-5.5 Pro

    GPT-5.5 Pro has the larger documented context window.

    Confidence: documented

Show secondary and unsupported calls
  • Coding work

    Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks

    Not enough matched evidence

    GPT-5.5 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-5.5 Pro and GPT-OSS 120B are scored on Estimated evidence for agentic, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like.

    Confidence: limited

  • Chat turn cost

    1K fresh input + 500 output tokens

    Not enough matched evidence

    A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.

    Confidence: listed-rates

  • Cache-heavy agent loop cost

    200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens

    Not enough matched evidence

    The page does not recommend a cost winner because at least one model cannot fit the stated workload in one request. GPT-OSS 120B does not fit this workload in one request. GPT-5.5 Pro has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate. GPT-OSS 120B has no comparable published API token rate.

    Confidence: rate-fallback

  • Repository review cost

    50K fresh input + 3K output tokens

    Not enough matched evidence

    A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.

    Confidence: listed-rates

What is actually comparable

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

Shared results
0
GPT-5.5 Pro only
6
GPT-OSS 120B only
2
Like-for-like categories
0 / 8

2 categories rest on Estimated evidence or different evidence sets. Those rows remain visible for coverage context but do not name a winner.

Category results, on a stated basis

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

Directional only
GPT-5.5 Pro
60.6
Estimated · #24/151
GPT-OSS 120B
44.9
Estimated · #97/151
Basis
BenchAlign lane · 1 vs 1 public rows
Reading
Directional only

Knowledge

Directional only
GPT-5.5 Pro
61.1
Estimated · #36/181
GPT-OSS 120B
44.4
Estimated · #118/181
Basis
BenchAlign lane · 2 vs 0 public rows
Reading
Directional only

Coding

Not comparable
GPT-5.5 Pro
Not ranked
GPT-OSS 120B
46.2
Estimated · #100/183
Basis
BenchAlign lane · 0 vs 1 public rows
Reading
Not comparable

Reasoning

Not comparable
GPT-5.5 Pro
Not ranked
GPT-OSS 120B
57.7
Unranked · 2 rankable rows
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Math

Not comparable
GPT-5.5 Pro
70.2
Unranked · 3 rankable rows
GPT-OSS 120B
Not ranked
Basis
Provisional lane · 2 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multilingual

Not comparable
GPT-5.5 Pro
Not ranked
GPT-OSS 120B
Not ranked
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multimodal

Not comparable
GPT-5.5 Pro
Not ranked
GPT-OSS 120B
Not ranked
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Instruction following

Not comparable
GPT-5.5 Pro
Not ranked
GPT-OSS 120B
84.0
#46/120
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

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

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.

A shared-evidence shape is not available.

BenchLM does not draw a radar or infer missing axes when the matched evidence is too sparse.

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-5.5 Pro
$0.12
Fits in one request
GPT-OSS 120B
Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
Fits in one request

GPT-OSS 120B has no comparable published API token rate.

Repository review

50K fresh input + 3K output tokens

GPT-5.5 Pro
$2.04
Fits in one request
GPT-OSS 120B
Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
Fits in one request

GPT-OSS 120B has no comparable published API token rate.

Cache-heavy agent loop

200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens

GPT-5.5 Pro
$8.40
Fits in one request
Cached input priced at the published list-input rate
GPT-OSS 120B
Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
Does not fit in one request
Cached-input rate unavailable

GPT-OSS 120B does not fit this workload in one request. GPT-5.5 Pro has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate. GPT-OSS 120B has no comparable published API token rate.

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-5.5 Pro

Not published

OpenAI pricing

GPT-OSS 120B

No comparable hosted API rate

Provider availability

GPT-5.5 Pro

Generally Available · OpenAI Responses API

OpenAI model catalog

GPT-OSS 120B

Not sourced

Reasoning profile

GPT-5.5 Pro

Reasoning

GPT-OSS 120B

Non-Reasoning

Weight access

GPT-5.5 Pro

Proprietary

GPT-OSS 120B

Open Weight

License

GPT-5.5 Pro

Proprietary

GPT-OSS 120B

Open Weight

Release date

GPT-5.5 Pro

2026-04-23

GPT-OSS 120B

2025-08-05

If you already use one of these models
Deployment change
Both entries list OpenAI as the provider. Confirm endpoint, model ID, limits, and feature support before switching.
Quality signal
The public evidence has no benchmark result shared by both models, so it does not support a quality verdict.
Workload cost
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Context tradeoff
GPT-5.5 Pro has the larger documented window (1.05M).

Run the same representative tasks against both endpoints before changing production traffic.

Benchmark evidence

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

Browse raw public benchmark evidence8 rows

Agentic

  • BrowseComp

    GPT-5.5 Pro90.1%
    Source
    GPT-OSS 120B

    Not directly comparable

  • Gert Labs

    GPT-5.5 Pro
    GPT-OSS 120B29.61%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Coding

  • React Native Evals

    GPT-5.5 Pro
    GPT-OSS 120B71.6%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Knowledge

  • HLE

    GPT-5.5 Pro57.2%
    Source
    GPT-OSS 120B

    Not directly comparable

  • HLE w/o tools

    GPT-5.5 Pro43.1%
    Source
    GPT-OSS 120B

    Not directly comparable

Math

  • FrontierMath (legacy)

    GPT-5.5 Pro52.4%
    Source
    GPT-OSS 120B

    Not directly comparable

  • FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)

    GPT-5.5 Pro51.000%
    Source
    GPT-OSS 120B

    Not directly comparable

  • FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)

    GPT-5.5 Pro39.600%
    Source
    GPT-OSS 120B

    Not directly comparable

Frequently asked questions

Which is better, GPT-5.5 Pro or GPT-OSS 120B?

The public evidence has no benchmark result shared by both models, so it does not support a quality verdict. The page therefore keeps the decision tied to the specific documented workload.

Which is better for coding, GPT-5.5 Pro or GPT-OSS 120B?

GPT-5.5 Pro is not ranked on the public lane for coding, so no winner is named for coding.

Which is better for agentic tasks, GPT-5.5 Pro or GPT-OSS 120B?

GPT-5.5 Pro scores higher for agentic tasks on the public lane, 60.6 to 44.9. GPT-5.5 Pro and GPT-OSS 120B are scored on Estimated evidence for agentic tasks, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like. BenchLM does not name a winner for agentic tasks from a directional reading; read the shared benchmark rows directly and test the models on the same task set.

Which costs less, GPT-5.5 Pro or GPT-OSS 120B?

Both models do not have comparable published API token rates, so this page does not name a universal price winner.

Which has the larger context window, GPT-5.5 Pro or GPT-OSS 120B?

GPT-5.5 Pro has the larger documented context window: 1.05M, compared with 128K.

Related comparisons

Last updated September 4, 2026

Watch GPT-5.5 Pro vs GPT-OSS 120B

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

Read a sample issue

Join 2,000+ readers.