Model comparison
DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) vs GPT-5.4
Head-to-head evidence from 24 shared benchmark results across 6 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) #81 (Estimated); GPT-5.4 #8 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) and GPT-5.4 share 24 comparable benchmark results. 4 of 8 categories are comparable. 14 results are unique to DeepSeek V4 Pro (High); 28 to GPT-5.4.
Updated July 23, 2026- Shared results
- 24
- DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) only
- 14
- GPT-5.4 only
- 28
- Comparable categories
- 4 / 8
Pick GPT-5.4 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) only becomes the better choice if mathematics is the priority or you want the cheaper token bill.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 24 shared benchmark results across 6 evidence categories; 4 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 55.47. 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 70.6. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is HLE, 34.5% to 52.1%. DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) does hit back in mathematics, so the answer changes if that is the part of the workload you care about most.
GPT-5.4 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $2.50 input / $15.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.43 input / $0.87 output per 1M tokens for DeepSeek V4 Pro (High). That is roughly 17.2x on output cost alone. GPT-5.4 gives you the larger context window at 1.05M, compared with 1M for DeepSeek V4 Pro (High).
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 | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) | Δ | GPT-5.4 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Math | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)94.0 | Margin← 51.5 | GPT-5.442.5 |
| Coding | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)69.8 | Margin← 12.1 | GPT-5.457.7 |
| Agentic | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)70.6 | Margin→ 6.6 | GPT-5.477.2 |
| Knowledge | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)57.0 | Margin→ 0.6 | GPT-5.457.6 |
| Multimodal | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)Not measured | MarginNo overlap | GPT-5.473.2 |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
HLE
KnowledgeA 34.5%B 52.1%Winner: GPT-5.4Δ 17.6HLE: DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) scored 34.5%; GPT-5.4 scored 52.1%. GPT-5.4 wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
Terminal-Bench 2.0
AgenticA 63.3%B 75.1%Winner: GPT-5.4Δ 11.8Terminal-Bench 2.0: DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) scored 63.3%; GPT-5.4 scored 75.1%. GPT-5.4 wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
GPQA
KnowledgeA 89.1%B 92.8%Winner: GPT-5.4Δ 3.7GPQA: DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) scored 89.1%; GPT-5.4 scored 92.8%. GPT-5.4 wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
SWE-bench Pro
CodingA 54.4%B 57.7%Winner: GPT-5.4Δ 3.3SWE-bench Pro: DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) scored 54.4%; GPT-5.4 scored 57.7%. GPT-5.4 wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
BrowseComp
AgenticA 80.4%B 82.7%Winner: GPT-5.4Δ 2.3BrowseComp: DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) scored 80.4%; GPT-5.4 scored 82.7%. GPT-5.4 wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) | GPT-5.4 | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)$0.435 input / $0.87 output | GPT-5.4$2.5 input / $15 output | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)Not available | GPT-5.474 tok/s | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)Not available | GPT-5.4151.79 s | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)1M | GPT-5.41.05M | GPT-5.4 lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
AgenticGPT-5.4 wins18 benchmarks
| Benchmark | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) | GPT-5.4 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 63.3% | 75.1% | GPT-5.4 leads |
| BrowseCompSource | 80.4% | 82.7% | GPT-5.4 leads |
| HLE w/ toolsSource | 44.7% | — | Not comparable |
| MCP AtlasSource | 74.2% | 70.6% | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads |
| ToolathlonSource | 49% | 54.6% | GPT-5.4 leads |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | 94.2% | 87.1% | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads |
| GDPval-AASource | 39.9% | 44.7% | GPT-5.4 leads |
| GDPval-AASource | 1299 | 1395 | GPT-5.4 leads |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | 34.4% | 41.1% | GPT-5.4 leads |
| CyberGymSource | — | 79.0% | Not comparable |
| OSWorld-VerifiedSource | — | 75% | Not comparable |
| Claw-EvalSource | — | 60.3% | Not comparable |
| DeepSearchQASource | — | 73.6% | Not comparable |
| APEX-Agents-AASource | — | 33.3% | Not comparable |
| Gert LabsSource | — | 64.89% | Not comparable |
| ResearchClawBenchSource | — | 15.3% | Not comparable |
| JobBenchSource | — | 38.9% | Not comparable |
| ExploitGymSource | — | 6.0% | Not comparable |
CodingDeepSeek V4 Pro (High) wins10 benchmarks
| Benchmark | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) | GPT-5.4 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| CodeforcesSource | 2919.0 | — | Not comparable |
| SWE-bench VerifiedSource | 79.4% | — | Not comparable |
| SWE-bench ProSource | 54.4% | 57.7% | GPT-5.4 leads |
| SWE MultilingualSource | 74.1% | — | Not comparable |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 63.3% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 46.4% | 56.6% | GPT-5.4 leads |
| AA Coding IndexSource | 58.7% | 71.0% | GPT-5.4 leads |
| LiveCodeBench ProSource | — | 87.5% | Not comparable |
| React Native EvalsSource | — | 85.3% | Not comparable |
| Vibe Code BenchSource | — | 67.42% | Not comparable |
Reasoning4 benchmarks
KnowledgeGPT-5.4 wins16 benchmarks
| Benchmark | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) | GPT-5.4 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMLU-ProSource | 87.1% | — | Not comparable |
| SimpleQASource | 46.2% | — | Not comparable |
| Chinese-SimpleQASource | 77.7% | — | Not comparable |
| GPQASource | 89.1% | 92.8% | GPT-5.4 leads |
| GPQA-DSource | 89.1% | 92.8% | GPT-5.4 leads |
| HLESource | 34.5% | 52.1% | GPT-5.4 leads |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 43.1% | 51.4% | GPT-5.4 leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 90.5% | 92.0% | GPT-5.4 leads |
| AA-HLESource | 33.5% | 41.6% | GPT-5.4 leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | -9.7% | 5.7% | GPT-5.4 leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 41.8% | 50.0% | GPT-5.4 leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 88.6% | 88.6% | Tie |
| HLE w/o toolsSource | — | 39.8% | Not comparable |
| HealthBench HardSource | — | 40.1% | Not comparable |
| MedXpertQA (Text)Source | — | 59.6% | Not comparable |
| HealthBench ProfessionalSource | — | 48.1% | Not comparable |
MathDeepSeek V4 Pro (High) wins6 benchmarks
| Benchmark | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) | GPT-5.4 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| HMMT Feb 2026Source | 94.0% | — | Not comparable |
| IMOAnswerBenchSource | 88.0% | — | Not comparable |
| ApexSource | 27.4% | — | Not comparable |
| Apex ShortlistSource | 85.5% | — | Not comparable |
| FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source | — | 47.600% | Not comparable |
| FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source | — | 27.100% | Not comparable |
Multimodal11 benchmarks
| Benchmark | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) | GPT-5.4 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Design Arena WebsiteSource | 1264 | 1250 | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads |
| 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 |
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) | GPT-5.4 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | 71.3% | 73.9% | GPT-5.4 leads |
Frequently Asked Questions (5)
Which is better, DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) or GPT-5.4?
GPT-5.4 is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 74.24 to 55.47. The biggest single separator in this matchup is HLE, where the scores are 34.5% and 52.1%.
Which is better for knowledge tasks, DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) or GPT-5.4?
GPT-5.4 has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 57.6 versus 57. Inside this category, HLE is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for coding, DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) or GPT-5.4?
DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 69.8 versus 57.7. Inside this category, AA Coding Index is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for math, DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) or GPT-5.4?
DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 94 versus 42.5. GPT-5.4 stays close enough that the answer can still flip depending on your workload.
Which is better for agentic tasks, DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) or GPT-5.4?
GPT-5.4 has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 77.2 versus 70.6. Inside this category, GDPval-AA 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.