GoogleGemini 3.1 ProVSOpenAIGPT-5.4
Our Take
We recommend GPT-5.4 if your workflow requires peak coding capability, or the 1.3x cheaper Gemini 3.1 Pro to optimize your API budget. While both models deliver similar reasoning performance, GPT-5.4 holds a clear lead in coding. Choose GPT-5.4 for complex development tasks, or Gemini 3.1 Pro for cost optimization.
▶WHY?
Benchmark Calculations & Evidence:
Coding Benchmarks: Both models were evaluated on the SWE-bench Pro benchmark. Gemini 3.1 Pro scored 54.2%, while GPT-5.4 scored 57.7%.
Reasoning Benchmarks: Both models were evaluated on the GPQA Diamond benchmark. Gemini 3.1 Pro scored 94.3%, while GPT-5.4 scored 92.8%.
Cost Efficiency: Gemini 3.1 Pro pricing ($2/M input, $12/M output) is 1.3x cheaper than GPT-5.4 ($2.5/M input, $15/M output).
Was this recommendation helpful?
Benchmarks & Scores
Coding (swe-bench-pro)
54.2%complex codebases, multi-file repositories, and architectural planning
Reasoning (gpqa-diamond)Winner (+1.5%)
94.3%graduate-level science QA
Cost & Context
Cost (per 1M tokens)1.3x cheaper
$4.50Input: $2.00 | Output: $12.00Context Window
1.05M tokensBenchmarks & Scores
Coding (swe-bench-pro)Winner (+3.5%)
57.7%complex codebases, multi-file repositories, and architectural planning
Reasoning (gpqa-diamond)
92.8%graduate-level science QA
Cost & Context
Cost (per 1M tokens)
$5.63Input: $2.50 | Output: $15.00Context WindowLarger
1.05M tokensFrequently Asked Questions about Gemini 3.1 Pro vs GPT-5.4
Gemini 3.1 Pro is cheaper than GPT-5.4. Gemini 3.1 Pro has a blended cost of $4.50/1M tokens, which is about 1.3x cheaper than GPT-5.4 at $5.63/1M tokens.
GPT-5.4 is better for coding tasks on this benchmark. It scores 57.7% on swe-bench-pro (complex codebases, multi-file repositories, and architectural planning) compared to Gemini 3.1 Pro which scores 54.2%.
Related Matchups
Explore similar comparisons for Gemini 3.1 Pro and GPT-5.4.
Do you want to find a model for your constraints?
Use our interactive model finder to filter LLMs by reasoning capability, coding performance, cost, and context length.