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 (medium)

OpenAI

52.81/100

Supported · Public rank #118

90% interval 48.956.8

GPT-5 (medium) vs GPT-5 mini

Updated September 4, 2026. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. They are not guarantees for a specific workload. This is a same-family comparison, so migration details appear when the source data supports them.

OpenAI logo
Model B
GPT-5 mini

OpenAI

46.29/100

Supported · Public rank #163

90% interval 41.750.9

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.

No workload recommendation clears the current evidence threshold.

Use the matched evidence, workload costs, and sourced specifications below instead of treating a point score as a universal answer.

Show secondary and unsupported calls
  • Coding work

    Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks

    Not enough matched evidence

    GPT-5 (medium) and GPT-5 mini are scored on Estimated evidence for coding, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like.

    Confidence: limited

  • Agentic work

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

    Not enough matched evidence

    GPT-5 (medium) 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

  • 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-5 (medium) does not fit this workload in one request. GPT-5 mini does not fit this workload in one request. GPT-5 mini has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate. GPT-5 (medium) 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 (medium) only
0
GPT-5 mini only
1
Like-for-like categories
0 / 8

1 category rests 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.

Coding

Directional only
GPT-5 (medium)
50.6
Estimated · #69/183
GPT-5 mini
41.4
Estimated · #133/183
Basis
BenchAlign lane · 0 vs 1 public rows
Reading
Directional only

Agentic

Not comparable
GPT-5 (medium)
Not ranked
GPT-5 mini
42.3
Estimated · #114/151
Basis
BenchAlign lane · 0 vs 0 public rows
Reading
Not comparable

Reasoning

Not comparable
GPT-5 (medium)
75.9
Unranked · 2 rankable rows
GPT-5 mini
Not ranked
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Knowledge

Not comparable
GPT-5 (medium)
52.7
Estimated · #72/181
GPT-5 mini
Not ranked
Basis
BenchAlign lane · 0 vs 0 public rows
Reading
Not comparable

Math

Not comparable
GPT-5 (medium)
Not ranked
GPT-5 mini
Not ranked
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multilingual

Not comparable
GPT-5 (medium)
Not ranked
GPT-5 mini
Not ranked
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multimodal

Not comparable
GPT-5 (medium)
69.2
Unranked · 1 rankable row
GPT-5 mini
Not ranked
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Instruction following

Not comparable
GPT-5 (medium)
86.1
#37/120
GPT-5 mini
Not ranked
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 (medium)
API rate not published
Fits in one request
GPT-5 mini
$0.00125
Fits in one request

GPT-5 (medium) has no comparable published API token rate.

Repository review

50K fresh input + 3K output tokens

GPT-5 (medium)
API rate not published
Fits in one request
GPT-5 mini
$0.0185
Fits in one request

GPT-5 (medium) has no comparable published API token rate.

Cache-heavy agent loop

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

GPT-5 (medium)
API rate not published
Does not fit in one request
Cached-input rate unavailable
GPT-5 mini
$0.075
Does not fit in one request
Cached input priced at the published list-input rate

GPT-5 (medium) does not fit this workload in one request. GPT-5 mini does not fit this workload in one request. GPT-5 mini has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate. GPT-5 (medium) 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.

Context window

Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.

GPT-5 (medium)

128K

GPT-5 mini

128K

API model ID

GPT-5 (medium)

Not sourced

GPT-5 mini

Not sourced

Cached-input rate

A missing cached-input rate falls back to the listed input rate only in the stated workload estimate.

GPT-5 (medium)

No comparable hosted API rate

GPT-5 mini

Not published

Documented inputs

GPT-5 (medium)

Not sourced

GPT-5 mini

Not sourced

Documented outputs

GPT-5 (medium)

Not sourced

GPT-5 mini

Not sourced

Provider availability

GPT-5 (medium)

Not sourced

GPT-5 mini

Not sourced

Reasoning profile

GPT-5 (medium)

Reasoning

GPT-5 mini

Reasoning

Weight access

GPT-5 (medium)

Proprietary

GPT-5 mini

Proprietary

License

GPT-5 (medium)

Proprietary

GPT-5 mini

Proprietary

Release date

GPT-5 (medium)

2025-08-07

GPT-5 mini

2025-08-07

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
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
Both models list 128K.

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 evidence1 rows

Coding

  • Vibe Code Bench

    GPT-5 (medium)
    GPT-5 mini14.17%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Frequently asked questions

Which is better, GPT-5 (medium) or GPT-5 mini?

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 (medium) or GPT-5 mini?

GPT-5 (medium) scores higher for coding on the public lane, 50.6 to 41.4. GPT-5 (medium) and GPT-5 mini are scored on Estimated evidence for coding, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like. BenchLM does not name a winner for coding from a directional reading; read the shared benchmark rows directly and test the models on the same task set.

Which is better for agentic tasks, GPT-5 (medium) or GPT-5 mini?

GPT-5 (medium) is not ranked on the public lane for agentic tasks, so no winner is named for agentic tasks.

Which costs less, GPT-5 (medium) or GPT-5 mini?

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 (medium) or GPT-5 mini?

Both models list the same context window, 128K.

Related comparisons

Last updated September 4, 2026

Watch GPT-5 (medium) vs GPT-5 mini

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

Read a sample issue

Join 2,000+ readers.