Model comparison
Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite vs GPT-5.4 Pro
Head-to-head evidence from 1 shared benchmark result across 1 category. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite #111 (Supported); GPT-5.4 Pro #44 (Estimated). 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 Pro share 1 comparable benchmark result. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 19 results are unique to Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite; 11 to GPT-5.4 Pro.
Updated July 23, 2026- Shared results
- 1
- Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite only
- 19
- GPT-5.4 Pro only
- 11
- Comparable categories
- 1 / 8
Pick GPT-5.4 Pro if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite only becomes the better choice if you want the cheaper token bill or you would rather avoid the extra latency and token burn of a reasoning model.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 1 shared benchmark result across 1 evidence category; 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 Pro is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 60.89 to 50.83. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
GPT-5.4 Pro's sharpest advantage is in multimodal & grounded, where it averages 94 against 73.2.
GPT-5.4 Pro is also the more expensive model on tokens at $30.00 input / $180.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.25 input / $1.50 output per 1M tokens for Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite. That is roughly 120.0x on output cost alone. GPT-5.4 Pro 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. GPT-5.4 Pro gives you the larger context window at 1.05M, compared with 1M for Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite.
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 Pro |
|---|---|---|---|
| Multimodal | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite73.2 | Margin→ 20.8 | GPT-5.4 Pro94.0 |
| Agentic | Gemini 3.1 Flash-LiteNot measured | MarginNo overlap | GPT-5.4 Pro89.3 |
| Reasoning | Gemini 3.1 Flash-LiteNot measured | MarginNo overlap | GPT-5.4 Pro83.3 |
| Knowledge | Gemini 3.1 Flash-LiteNot measured | MarginNo overlap | GPT-5.4 Pro58.7 |
| Math | Gemini 3.1 Flash-LiteNot measured | MarginNo overlap | GPT-5.4 Pro46.9 |
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 Pro | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite$0.25 input / $1.5 output | GPT-5.4 Pro$30 input / $180 output | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite205 tok/s | GPT-5.4 Pro74 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 Pro151.79 s | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite reaches the first token sooner. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite1M | GPT-5.4 Pro1.05M | GPT-5.4 Pro lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic7 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite | GPT-5.4 Pro | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Agentic IndexSource | 6.2% | — | Not comparable |
| APEX-Agents-AASource | 12.2% | — | Not comparable |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | 31.3% | — | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | 7.1% | — | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | 642 | — | Not comparable |
| Gert LabsSource | 38.46% | — | Not comparable |
| BrowseCompSource | — | 89.3% | Not comparable |
Coding3 benchmarks
Reasoning3 benchmarks
Knowledge10 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite | GPT-5.4 Pro | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 25.0% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 82.2% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-HLESource | 16.2% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | -15.5% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 36.4% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 81.6% | — | Not comparable |
| HLESource | — | 58.7% | Not comparable |
| FrontierScienceSource | — | 36.7% | Not comparable |
| FrontierScience ResearchSource | — | 36.7% | Not comparable |
| HLE w/o toolsSource | — | 42.7% | Not comparable |
Math4 benchmarks
MultimodalGPT-5.4 Pro wins3 benchmarks
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite | GPT-5.4 Pro | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | 77.2% | — | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (2)
Which is better, Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite or GPT-5.4 Pro?
GPT-5.4 Pro is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 60.89 to 50.83.
Which is better for multimodal and grounded tasks, Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite or GPT-5.4 Pro?
GPT-5.4 Pro has the edge for multimodal and grounded tasks in this comparison, averaging 94 versus 73.2. Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite stays close enough that the answer can still flip depending on your workload.
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.