MetaLlama-3.1 405BVSOpenAIGPT-5.4 Pro
Our Take
Standardized reasoning and coding benchmarks are currently pending verification for one or both of these models. We recommend testing Llama-3.1 405B and GPT-5.4 Pro directly in their respective provider playgrounds to see which fits your specific prompt styles best.
Was this recommendation helpful?
Benchmarks & Scores
Coding (human-eval)
89%basic standalone code completion and simple functions
Reasoning (gpqa-diamond)
50.7%graduate-level science QA
Cost & Context
Cost (per 1M tokens)
Self HostLocal execution (zero API fees)Context Window
131.07k tokensBenchmarks & Scores
Coding (swe-bench-pro)
N/Acomplex codebases, multi-file repositories, and architectural planning
Reasoning (gpqa-diamond)Winner (+16.9%)
67.6%graduate-level science QA
Cost & Context
Cost (per 1M tokens)
$0.14Input: $0.05 | Output: $0.40Context WindowLarger
400k tokensFrequently Asked Questions about Llama-3.1 405B vs GPT-5.4 Pro
Related Matchups
Explore similar comparisons for Llama-3.1 405B and GPT-5.4 Pro.
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.