Capability
59.6/100
field median 56.2
#62 of 232 ranked models
Keep up with the models you depend on. Follow price changes, retirements, and API updates.Follow the models you depend on.
Follow model changesReleased Mar 17, 2026 — see all recent releases
Data as of September 10, 2026 · How the score is built
Share or export
Multimodal & Grounded ranks #45. Particularly strong for screenshots, documents, charts, and grounded multimodal workflows.
18 published rows leave some tracked benchmark slots empty. Agentic is its lowest eligible category at #133.
Check the published record for the model and serving route you use.
Check this modelEach value carries a field reference instead of floating alone. Markers compare this model with the current ranked and priced catalog; they are not absolute quality thresholds.
Capability
59.6/100
field median 56.2
#62 of 232 ranked models
Price
$0.20input / $1.25 output
input median $0.97
cached $0.020 · blended $0.72
Speed
191tok/s
field median 86.5 tok/s
First token 3.64 s
Context
400Ktokens
field median 256,000
Maximum output length is tracked separately
Each axis shows percentile within that category’s eligible cohort. The comparison outline is the median of the six nearest public-score peers; a collapsed vertex means the category is not rank-eligible.
GPT-5.4 nano category percentile values
The dashed outline is median of 6 nearest peers.
Published API price against the public score. The x-axis uses a log scale; the dashed path marks models that are not beaten by a cheaper, higher-scoring option. Price uses average of published input and output rates.
The chart opens on the current model. Scroll horizontally to inspect the full price axis.
Horizontal: blended price per million tokens, log scale · Vertical: public score
Coverage is split by category so a strong number never hides a thin evidence base. Verified means the row is tied to a published source; provisional rows remain visible but separate.
Each documented value carries its source. Missing fields stay visible as not sourced or not published, rather than disappearing from the page.
Scores and ranks appear only where published evidence can be displayed. The table keeps the score, weight, cohort, and evidence state together.
| Category | Score | Rank | Percentile | Weight | Benchmarks | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AgenticRank #133 of 152Percentile 13thWeight 22%6 benchmarksVerified | 34.6 | #133 of 152 | 13th | 22% | 6 benchmarks | Verified |
| CodingRank #126 of 151Percentile 17thWeight 20%3 benchmarksVerified | 37.1 | #126 of 151 | 17th | 20% | 3 benchmarks | Verified |
| ReasoningWeight 17%0 benchmarksNot measured | Not measured | Not ranked | Not available | 17% | 0 benchmarks | Not measured |
| KnowledgeRank #97 of 183Percentile 47thWeight 12%5 benchmarksMixed sources | 47.4 | #97 of 183 | 47th | 12% | 5 benchmarks | Mixed sources |
| MathRank Not rankedWeight 5%2 benchmarksVerified | 43.9 | Not ranked | Not available | 5% | 2 benchmarks | Verified |
| MultilingualWeight 7%0 benchmarksNot measured | Not measured | Not ranked | Not available | 7% | 0 benchmarks | Not measured |
| MultimodalRank #45 of 48Percentile 6thWeight 12%2 benchmarksVerified | 23.8 | #45 of 48 | 6th | 12% | 2 benchmarks | Verified |
| Inst. FollowingWeight 5%0 benchmarksNot measured | Not measured | Not ranked | Not available | 5% | 0 benchmarks | Not measured |
Coding opens by default. The marker compares each value with the best source-verified result in the catalog; provisional leaders do not set the reference. Expand the remaining categories for every published row.
| Benchmark | Score | Versus best verified row | Gap | Weight | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| LiveCodeBench (Vals)LiveCodeBench, Vals AI run | Score84.0% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Claude Fable 5.1 · 90.5% | Gap6.5 behind | WeightWeighted 15% | |
| Vibe Code BenchVibe Code Bench v1.1 | Score26.10% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Claude Opus 4.7 · 71.00% | Gap44.9 behind | WeightDisplay only | Benchmark exact |
| SWE-bench (Vals)SWE-bench, Vals AI run | Score69.8% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Claude Opus 5 · 97.0% | Gap27.2 behind | WeightDisplay only | Verified |
| Benchmark | Score | Versus best verified row | Gap | Weight | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench 2.0 | Score46.3% | Versus best verified row Best verified: GPT-5.6 Sol · 91.9% | Gap45.6 behind | WeightWeighted 30% | Provider exact |
| OSWorld-Verified | Score39% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Qwen3.8 Max · 86.1% | Gap47.1 behind | WeightWeighted 25% | Provider exact |
| MCP Atlas | Score56.1% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Muse Spark 1.1 · 88.1% | Gap32 behind | WeightDisplay only | Provider exact |
| Toolathlon | Score35.5% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Muse Spark 1.1 · 75.6% | Gap40.1 behind | WeightDisplay only | Provider exact |
| τ²-bench resultsτ²-Bench Tool-Agent-User Evaluation | Score92.5% | Versus best verified row Best verified: GPT-5.4 · 98.9% | Gap6.4 behind | WeightDisplay only | Provider exact |
| Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals)Terminal-Bench 2.1, Vals AI run | Score41.6% | Versus best verified row Best verified: GPT-6 Astra · 87.3% | Gap45.7 behind | WeightDisplay only |
| Benchmark | Score | Versus best verified row | Gap | Weight | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HLEHumanity's Last Exam | Score37.7% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Claude Fable 5.1 · 65% | Gap27.3 behind | WeightWeighted 35% | Provider exact |
| HLE w/o toolsHumanity's Last Exam without tools | Score24.3% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Claude Fable 5.1 · 60.9% | Gap36.6 behind | WeightWeighted 10% | Provider exact |
| MMLU-Pro (Vals)MMLU-Pro, Vals AI run | Score77.2% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Claude Fable 5.1 · 92.4% | Gap15.2 behind | WeightWeighted 10% | Verified |
| GPQAGraduate-Level Google-Proof Q&A | Score82.8% | Versus best verified row Best verified: GPT-6 Astra · 96% | Gap13.2 behind | WeightWeighted 7% | Reported |
| GPQA Diamond (Vals)GPQA Diamond, Vals AI run | Score77.5% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Gemini 3.1 Pro · 95.5% | Gap18 behind | WeightDisplay only |
| Benchmark | Score | Versus best verified row | Gap | Weight | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)FrontierMath v2 Tiers 1-3 | Score25.860% | Versus best verified row Best verified: GPT-5.6 Sol · 89.000% | Gap63.1 behind | WeightWeighted 30% | Benchmark exact |
| FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)FrontierMath v2 Tier 4 | Score6.250% | Versus best verified row Best verified: GPT-6 Astra · 97.600% | Gap91.4 behind | WeightWeighted 10% | Benchmark exact |
| Benchmark | Score | Versus best verified row | Gap | Weight | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MMMU-ProMassive Multi-discipline Multimodal Understanding Pro | Score66.1% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Gemini 3.5 Flash · 83.6% | Gap17.5 behind | WeightWeighted 40% | Provider exact |
| MMMU-Pro w/ PythonMMMU-Pro with Python | Score69.5% | Versus best verified row Best verified: GPT-5.6 Sol · 84.6% | Gap15.1 behind | WeightDisplay only | Provider exact |
The sequence follows explicit supersedes links. A successor's displayed score stays at least 0.1 points above its predecessor; raw benchmark rows do not move. Scores and prices remain blank when the corresponding public row or first-party rate is unavailable.
Aug 7, 2025
GPT-5 nanoScore 36.9 · $0.05 / $0.4
Mar 17, 2026 · you are here
GPT-5.4 nanoScore 59.6 · $0.2 / $1.25
Nano
The visual layer above carries the decisions. These notes preserve the model, ranking, coverage, and family context behind the numbers.
GPT-5.4 nano ranks #62 of 232 on the public leaderboard with a score of 59.57/100. Its source-verified position is #47 of 130.
GPT-5.4 nano is a proprietary model with a 400K context window. It uses an explicit reasoning mode, which can improve complex problem solving while adding latency and token use.
Official exact-value snapshot sourced from OpenAI's GPT-5.4 mini and nano launch materials.
GPT-5.4 nano sits in the GPT-5.4 family with GPT-5.4, GPT-5.4 mini, GPT-5.4 Pro. Its explicit predecessor is GPT-5 nano. 18 of 435 tracked benchmark slots currently have displayable evidence. Missing categories stay blank.
Its strongest eligible category is Multimodal & Grounded at #45, while its lowest eligible position is Agentic at #133. particularly strong for screenshots, documents, charts, and grounded multimodal workflows.
OpenAI · Model release
Radar confirmed these at the source. Use GPT-5.4 nano in your work? Explore Radar to follow supported changes and choose your alerts.
GPT-5.4 nano ranks #62 out of 232 models on the public BenchAlign leaderboard, with a score of 59.57/100. Its evidence status is Supported, and this profile shows 18 source-displayable benchmark rows. The label describes evidence depth, not a provider quality claim; inspect category rows before choosing a workload.
GPT-5.4 nano ranks #97 out of 183 eligible models for knowledge and understanding, with a public category score of 47.4/100. Higher-ranked alternatives are available for workloads where this category decides the choice. Check the underlying rows before treating the aggregate as a workload guarantee.
GPT-5.4 nano ranks #126 out of 151 eligible models for coding and programming, with a public category score of 37.1/100. Higher-ranked alternatives are available for workloads where this category decides the choice. Check the underlying rows before treating the aggregate as a workload guarantee.
GPT-5.4 nano has source-displayable benchmark coverage for mathematics, but the public category table does not assign it a rank there. The individual rows remain available for inspection. A missing category position means the evidence threshold was not met; it does not convert the model's unmeasured work into a zero.
GPT-5.4 nano ranks #133 out of 152 eligible models for agentic tool use and computer tasks, with a public category score of 34.6/100. Higher-ranked alternatives are available for workloads where this category decides the choice. Check the underlying rows before treating the aggregate as a workload guarantee.
GPT-5.4 nano ranks #45 out of 48 eligible models for multimodal and grounded tasks, with a public category score of 23.8/100. Higher-ranked alternatives are available for workloads where this category decides the choice. Check the underlying rows before treating the aggregate as a workload guarantee.
GPT-5.4 nano belongs to the GPT-5.4 family. Related tracked variants include GPT-5.4, GPT-5.4 mini, GPT-5.4 Pro. A sibling link indicates shared lineage or a documented configuration relationship; it does not mean the variants have identical pricing, context limits, benchmark evidence, or deployment behavior. Compare before switching.
No. GPT-5.4 nano currently has 34 source-displayable rows across 435 tracked benchmark slots. The profile exposes published, non-generated evidence and leaves missing categories blank until an exact evaluation is available. Coverage describes how much was measured; it is not a penalty added to an individual benchmark result.
GPT-5.4 nano has a documented context window of 400K. That figure is the maximum combined prompt and retained-conversation space reported for this exact model; it is not the maximum output length. The profile keeps output limits separate because providers often publish those limits independently.
Related resources
Last updated September 10, 2026. Runtime fields remain blank until a sourced snapshot exists.
Get one weekly email when material rank, price, availability, or benchmark evidence changes are worth revisiting.
Read a sample issueJoin 2,000+ readers.