Model comparison
Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite vs GPT-5.4 nano
Head-to-head evidence from 18 shared benchmark results across 6 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite #111 (Supported); GPT-5.4 nano #25 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite and GPT-5.4 nano share 18 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 2 results are unique to Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite; 11 to GPT-5.4 nano.
Updated July 23, 2026- Shared results
- 18
- Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite only
- 2
- GPT-5.4 nano only
- 11
- Comparable categories
- 1 / 8
Pick GPT-5.4 nano if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite only becomes the better choice if multimodal & grounded is the priority or you need the larger 1M context window.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 18 shared benchmark results across 6 evidence categories; 1 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 nano is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 66.79 to 50.83. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite is also the more expensive model on tokens at $0.25 input / $1.50 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.20 input / $1.25 output per 1M tokens for GPT-5.4 nano. GPT-5.4 nano is the reasoning model in the pair, while Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite is not. That usually helps on harder chain-of-thought-heavy tests, but it can also mean more latency and more token spend in real use. Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 400K for GPT-5.4 nano.
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 | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite | Δ | GPT-5.4 nano |
|---|---|---|---|
| Multimodal | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite73.2 | Margin← 7.1 | GPT-5.4 nano66.1 |
| Agentic | Gemini 3.1 Flash-LiteNot measured | MarginNo overlap | GPT-5.4 nano42.9 |
| Knowledge | Gemini 3.1 Flash-LiteNot measured | MarginNo overlap | GPT-5.4 nano43.8 |
| Math | Gemini 3.1 Flash-LiteNot measured | MarginNo overlap | GPT-5.4 nano21.0 |
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite | GPT-5.4 nano | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite$0.25 input / $1.5 output | GPT-5.4 nano$0.2 input / $1.25 output | GPT-5.4 nano has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite205 tok/s | GPT-5.4 nano191 tok/s | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite has the higher measured throughput. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite7.50 s | GPT-5.4 nano3.64 s | GPT-5.4 nano reaches the first token sooner. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite1M | GPT-5.4 nano400K | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic10 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite | GPT-5.4 nano | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Agentic IndexSource | 6.2% | 27.5% | GPT-5.4 nano leads |
| APEX-Agents-AASource | 12.2% | 24.9% | GPT-5.4 nano leads |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | 31.3% | 76% | GPT-5.4 nano leads |
| GDPval-AASource | 7.1% | 30.0% | GPT-5.4 nano leads |
| GDPval-AASource | 642 | 1100 | GPT-5.4 nano leads |
| Gert LabsSource | 38.46% | — | Not comparable |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | — | 46.3% | Not comparable |
| OSWorld-VerifiedSource | — | 39% | Not comparable |
| MCP AtlasSource | — | 56.1% | Not comparable |
| ToolathlonSource | — | 35.5% | Not comparable |
Coding3 benchmarks
Reasoning2 benchmarks
Knowledge9 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite | GPT-5.4 nano | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 25.0% | 38.2% | GPT-5.4 nano leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 82.2% | 81.7% | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite leads |
| AA-HLESource | 16.2% | 26.5% | GPT-5.4 nano leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | -15.5% | -29.5% | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 36.4% | 25.4% | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 81.6% | 73.6% | GPT-5.4 nano leads |
| GPQASource | — | 82.8% | Not comparable |
| HLESource | — | 37.7% | Not comparable |
| HLE w/o toolsSource | — | 24.3% | Not comparable |
Math2 benchmarks
MultimodalGemini 3.1 Flash-Lite wins4 benchmarks
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite | GPT-5.4 nano | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | 77.2% | 75.9% | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite leads |
Frequently Asked Questions (2)
Which is better, Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite or GPT-5.4 nano?
GPT-5.4 nano is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 66.79 to 50.83.
Which is better for multimodal and grounded tasks, Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite or GPT-5.4 nano?
Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite has the edge for multimodal and grounded tasks in this comparison, averaging 73.2 versus 66.1. Inside this category, AA-MMMU-Pro 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.