GoogleGemini 3.5 Flash LiteVSOpenAIGPT-5.4 nano

Analysis by:the whichllmmodel Editorial Team|Updated: June 2026

Our Take

Both models perform almost identically, with an average score gap of just 1.5%. We recommend choosing GPT-5.4 nano as it is the more cost-effective option (being 1.8x cheaper) without sacrificing any real-world capability.

Was this recommendation helpful?

Model Specs

Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite

Website

Benchmarks & Scores

Coding (swe-bench-pro)Winner (+1.8%)

54.2%

excellent at multi-file repositories, autonomous agents, and industrial codebases

Reasoning (gpqa-diamond)Winner (+1.2%)

84%

graduate-level science QA

Cost & Context

Cost (per 1M tokens)

$0.85Input: $0.30 | Output: $2.50

Context WindowLarger

1.05M tokens

Model Specs

GPT-5.4 nano

Website

Benchmarks & Scores

Coding (swe-bench-pro)

52.4%

excellent at multi-file repositories, autonomous agents, and industrial codebases

Reasoning (gpqa-diamond)

82.8%

graduate-level science QA

Cost & Context

Cost (per 1M tokens)1.8x cheaper

$0.46Input: $0.20 | Output: $1.25

Context Window

400k tokens

Read our data collection methodology

Frequently Asked Questions about Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite vs GPT-5.4 nano

GPT-5.4 nano is cheaper than Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite. GPT-5.4 nano has a blended cost of $0.46/1M tokens, which is about 1.8x cheaper than Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite at $0.85/1M tokens.

Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite is better for coding tasks on this benchmark. It scores 54.2% on swe-bench-pro (excellent at multi-file repositories, autonomous agents, and industrial codebases) compared to GPT-5.4 nano which scores 52.4%.

Related Matchups

Explore similar comparisons for Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite and GPT-5.4 nano.

Browse More Comparisons

GoogleGemini 3.5 Flash Lite

GoogleGemini 3.5 Flash Lite

OpenAIGPT-5.6 Terra

Compare Specs

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.

Open Model Finder