OpenAIGPT-5.4 nanoVSOpenAIGPT-5.5
Our Take
We recommend GPT-5.5 if you need peak intelligence for reasoning and coding tasks, or the 24.3x cheaper GPT-5.4 nano to optimize your budget for high-volume pipelines. While GPT-5.5 holds a clear performance lead, it carries a heavy price premium. Choose GPT-5.5 for complex logic, or GPT-5.4 nano for budget efficiency.
▶WHY?
Benchmark Calculations & Evidence:
Coding Benchmarks: Both models were evaluated on the SWE-bench Pro benchmark. GPT-5.5 scored 58.6%, while GPT-5.4 nano scored 52.4%.
Reasoning Benchmarks: Both models were evaluated on the GPQA Diamond benchmark. GPT-5.5 scored 93.6%, while GPT-5.4 nano scored 82.8%.
Cost Efficiency: GPT-5.4 nano pricing ($0.2/M input, $1.25/M output) is 24.3x cheaper than GPT-5.5 ($5/M input, $30/M output).
Was this recommendation helpful?
Benchmarks & Scores
Coding (swe-bench-pro)
52.4%complex codebases, multi-file repositories, and architectural planning
Reasoning (gpqa-diamond)
82.8%graduate-level science QA
Cost & Context
Cost (per 1M tokens)24.3x cheaper
$0.46Input: $0.20 | Output: $1.25Context Window
400k tokensBenchmarks & Scores
Coding (swe-bench-pro)Winner (+6.2%)
58.6%complex codebases, multi-file repositories, and architectural planning
Reasoning (gpqa-diamond)Winner (+10.8%)
93.6%graduate-level science QA
Cost & Context
Cost (per 1M tokens)
$11.25Input: $5.00 | Output: $30.00Context WindowLarger
1.05M tokensFrequently Asked Questions about GPT-5.4 nano vs GPT-5.5
GPT-5.4 nano is cheaper than GPT-5.5. GPT-5.4 nano has a blended cost of $0.46/1M tokens, which is about 24.3x cheaper than GPT-5.5 at $11.25/1M tokens.
GPT-5.5 is better for coding tasks on this benchmark. It scores 58.6% on swe-bench-pro (complex codebases, multi-file repositories, and architectural planning) compared to GPT-5.4 nano which scores 52.4%.
Related Matchups
Explore similar comparisons for GPT-5.4 nano and GPT-5.5.
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.