Model comparison
GPT-5.4 vs GPT-5.4 Pro
Head-to-head evidence from 7 shared benchmark results across 5 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Sibling matchup inside the GPT-5.4 family.
Public leaderboard positions: GPT-5.4 #8 (Supported); GPT-5.4 Pro #44 (Estimated). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. GPT-5.4 and GPT-5.4 Pro share 7 comparable benchmark results. 4 of 8 categories are comparable. 45 results are unique to GPT-5.4; 5 to GPT-5.4 Pro.
Updated July 23, 2026- Shared results
- 7
- GPT-5.4 only
- 45
- GPT-5.4 Pro only
- 5
- Comparable categories
- 4 / 8
GPT-5.4 makes more sense if you want the cheaper token bill, while GPT-5.4 Pro is the cleaner fit if multimodal & grounded is the priority.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 7 shared benchmark results across 5 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 and GPT-5.4 Pro sit in the same GPT-5.4 family. This page is less about two unrelated model lineages and more about how the siblings trade off on benchmark shape, token costs, and practical limits like context window.
GPT-5.4 is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 74.24 to 60.89. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
GPT-5.4 Pro is also the more expensive model on tokens at $30.00 input / $180.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $2.50 input / $15.00 output per 1M tokens for GPT-5.4. That is roughly 12.0x on output cost alone.
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 | GPT-5.4 | Δ | GPT-5.4 Pro |
|---|---|---|---|
| Multimodal | GPT-5.473.2 | Margin→ 20.8 | GPT-5.4 Pro94.0 |
| Agentic | GPT-5.477.2 | Margin→ 12.1 | GPT-5.4 Pro89.3 |
| Math | GPT-5.442.5 | Margin→ 4.4 | GPT-5.4 Pro46.9 |
| Knowledge | GPT-5.457.6 | Margin→ 1.1 | GPT-5.4 Pro58.7 |
| Coding | GPT-5.457.7 | MarginNo overlap | GPT-5.4 ProNot measured |
| Reasoning | GPT-5.4Not measured | MarginNo overlap | GPT-5.4 Pro83.3 |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
MMMU-Pro
MultimodalA 81.2%B 94%Winner: GPT-5.4 ProΔ 12.8MMMU-Pro: GPT-5.4 scored 81.2%; GPT-5.4 Pro scored 94%. GPT-5.4 Pro wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)
MathA 27.100%B 37.500%Winner: GPT-5.4 ProΔ 10.4FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4): GPT-5.4 scored 27.100%; GPT-5.4 Pro scored 37.500%. GPT-5.4 Pro wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
HLE
KnowledgeA 52.1%B 58.7%Winner: GPT-5.4 ProΔ 6.6HLE: GPT-5.4 scored 52.1%; GPT-5.4 Pro scored 58.7%. GPT-5.4 Pro wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
BrowseComp
AgenticA 82.7%B 89.3%Winner: GPT-5.4 ProΔ 6.6BrowseComp: GPT-5.4 scored 82.7%; GPT-5.4 Pro scored 89.3%. GPT-5.4 Pro wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)
MathA 47.600%B 50.000%Winner: GPT-5.4 ProΔ 2.4FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3): GPT-5.4 scored 47.600%; GPT-5.4 Pro scored 50.000%. GPT-5.4 Pro wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | GPT-5.4 | GPT-5.4 Pro | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | GPT-5.4$2.5 input / $15 output | GPT-5.4 Pro$30 input / $180 output | GPT-5.4 has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | GPT-5.474 tok/s | GPT-5.4 Pro74 tok/s | Measured throughput is equal. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | GPT-5.4151.79 s | GPT-5.4 Pro151.79 s | Measured first-token latency is equal. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | GPT-5.41.05M | GPT-5.4 Pro1.05M | Listed context windows are equal. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
AgenticGPT-5.4 Pro wins17 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GPT-5.4 | GPT-5.4 Pro | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 75.1% | — | Not comparable |
| CyberGymSource | 79.0% | — | Not comparable |
| BrowseCompSource | 82.7% | 89.3% | GPT-5.4 Pro leads |
| OSWorld-VerifiedSource | 75% | — | Not comparable |
| MCP AtlasSource | 70.6% | — | Not comparable |
| ToolathlonSource | 54.6% | — | Not comparable |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | 87.1% | — | Not comparable |
| Claw-EvalSource | 60.3% | — | Not comparable |
| DeepSearchQASource | 73.6% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | 41.1% | — | Not comparable |
| APEX-Agents-AASource | 33.3% | — | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | 44.7% | — | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | 1395 | — | Not comparable |
| Gert LabsSource | 64.89% | — | Not comparable |
| ResearchClawBenchSource | 15.3% | — | Not comparable |
| JobBenchSource | 38.9% | — | Not comparable |
| ExploitGymSource | 6.0% | — | Not comparable |
Coding6 benchmarks
Reasoning3 benchmarks
KnowledgeGPT-5.4 Pro wins15 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GPT-5.4 | GPT-5.4 Pro | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQASource | 92.8% | — | Not comparable |
| HLESource | 52.1% | 58.7% | GPT-5.4 Pro leads |
| HLE w/o toolsSource | 39.8% | 42.7% | GPT-5.4 Pro leads |
| GPQA-DSource | 92.8% | — | Not comparable |
| HealthBench HardSource | 40.1% | — | Not comparable |
| MedXpertQA (Text)Source | 59.6% | — | Not comparable |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 51.4% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 92.0% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-HLESource | 41.6% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | 5.7% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 50.0% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 88.6% | — | Not comparable |
| HealthBench ProfessionalSource | 48.1% | — | Not comparable |
| FrontierScienceSource | — | 36.7% | Not comparable |
| FrontierScience ResearchSource | — | 36.7% | Not comparable |
MathGPT-5.4 Pro wins4 benchmarks
MultimodalGPT-5.4 Pro wins11 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GPT-5.4 | GPT-5.4 Pro | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMMU-ProSource | 81.2% | 94% | GPT-5.4 Pro leads |
| 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 |
| Design Arena WebsiteSource | 1250 | — | Not comparable |
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GPT-5.4 | GPT-5.4 Pro | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | 73.9% | — | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (5)
Which is better, GPT-5.4 or GPT-5.4 Pro?
GPT-5.4 and GPT-5.4 Pro are sibling variants in the GPT-5.4 family, so the right pick depends on whether you value the better benchmark line, cheaper tokens, or the larger context window. GPT-5.4 is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard 74.24 to 60.89.
Which is better for knowledge tasks, GPT-5.4 or GPT-5.4 Pro?
GPT-5.4 Pro has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 58.7 versus 57.6. Inside this category, HLE is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for math, GPT-5.4 or GPT-5.4 Pro?
GPT-5.4 Pro has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 46.9 versus 42.5. Inside this category, FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4) is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for agentic tasks, GPT-5.4 or GPT-5.4 Pro?
GPT-5.4 Pro has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 89.3 versus 77.2. Inside this category, BrowseComp is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for multimodal and grounded tasks, GPT-5.4 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. Inside this category, 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.