Model comparison
Gemma 4 E4B vs GPT-5.4 nano
Head-to-head evidence from 13 shared benchmark results across 6 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: Gemma 4 E4B #155 (Estimated); GPT-5.4 nano #25 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Gemma 4 E4B and GPT-5.4 nano share 13 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 1 result is unique to Gemma 4 E4B; 16 to GPT-5.4 nano.
Updated July 23, 2026- Shared results
- 13
- Gemma 4 E4B only
- 1
- GPT-5.4 nano only
- 16
- Comparable categories
- 1 / 8
Pick GPT-5.4 nano if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Gemma 4 E4B only becomes the better choice if knowledge is the priority or you want the cheaper token bill.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 13 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 43.2. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
GPT-5.4 nano is also the more expensive model on tokens at $0.20 input / $1.25 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.00 input / $0.00 output per 1M tokens for Gemma 4 E4B. That is roughly Infinityx on output cost alone. GPT-5.4 nano gives you the larger context window at 400K, compared with 128K for Gemma 4 E4B.
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 | Gemma 4 E4B | Δ | GPT-5.4 nano |
|---|---|---|---|
| Knowledge | Gemma 4 E4B67.4 | Margin← 23.6 | GPT-5.4 nano43.8 |
| Agentic | Gemma 4 E4BNot measured | MarginNo overlap | GPT-5.4 nano42.9 |
| Math | Gemma 4 E4BNot measured | MarginNo overlap | GPT-5.4 nano21.0 |
| Multimodal | Gemma 4 E4BNot measured | MarginNo overlap | GPT-5.4 nano66.1 |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
GPQA
KnowledgeA 58.6%B 82.8%Winner: GPT-5.4 nanoΔ 24.2GPQA: Gemma 4 E4B scored 58.6%; GPT-5.4 nano scored 82.8%. GPT-5.4 nano wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Gemma 4 E4B | GPT-5.4 nano | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Gemma 4 E4B$0 input / $0 output | GPT-5.4 nano$0.2 input / $1.25 output | Gemma 4 E4B has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Gemma 4 E4BNot available | GPT-5.4 nano191 tok/s | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Gemma 4 E4BNot available | GPT-5.4 nano3.64 s | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Gemma 4 E4B128K | GPT-5.4 nano400K | GPT-5.4 nano lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic9 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemma 4 E4B | GPT-5.4 nano | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| τ²-bench resultsSource | 20.8% | 76% | GPT-5.4 nano leads |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | — | 46.3% | Not comparable |
| OSWorld-VerifiedSource | — | 39% | Not comparable |
| MCP AtlasSource | — | 56.1% | Not comparable |
| ToolathlonSource | — | 35.5% | Not comparable |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | — | 27.5% | Not comparable |
| APEX-Agents-AASource | — | 24.9% | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | — | 30.0% | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | — | 1100 | Not comparable |
Coding3 benchmarks
Reasoning2 benchmarks
KnowledgeGemma 4 E4B wins10 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemma 4 E4B | GPT-5.4 nano | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQASource | 58.6% | 82.8% | GPT-5.4 nano leads |
| MMLU-ProSource | 69.4% | — | Not comparable |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 12.5% | 38.2% | GPT-5.4 nano leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 57.6% | 81.7% | GPT-5.4 nano leads |
| AA-HLESource | 3.7% | 26.5% | GPT-5.4 nano leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | -20.0% | -29.5% | Gemma 4 E4B leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 8.6% | 25.4% | GPT-5.4 nano leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 31.3% | 73.6% | Gemma 4 E4B leads |
| HLESource | — | 37.7% | Not comparable |
| HLE w/o toolsSource | — | 24.3% | Not comparable |
Math2 benchmarks
Multimodal3 benchmarks
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemma 4 E4B | GPT-5.4 nano | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | 44.2% | 75.9% | GPT-5.4 nano leads |
Frequently Asked Questions (2)
Which is better, Gemma 4 E4B or GPT-5.4 nano?
GPT-5.4 nano is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 66.79 to 43.2. The biggest single separator in this matchup is GPQA, where the scores are 58.6% and 82.8%.
Which is better for knowledge tasks, Gemma 4 E4B or GPT-5.4 nano?
Gemma 4 E4B has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 67.4 versus 43.8. Inside this category, AA-Omniscience Hallucination Rate 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.