OpenAIGPT-5.4 nanoVSxAIGrok 4.20
Our Take
We recommend Grok 4.20 if your workflow requires peak reasoning performance, or the 6.5x cheaper GPT-5.4 nano to optimize your API budget. While both models deliver similar coding capabilities, Grok 4.20 holds a clear lead in reasoning. Choose Grok 4.20 for complex logic, or GPT-5.4 nano for cost optimization.
▶WHY?
Benchmark Calculations & Evidence:
Coding Benchmarks: Both models were evaluated on the SWE-bench Pro benchmark. GPT-5.4 nano scored 52.4%, while Grok 4.20 scored 51.8%.
Reasoning Benchmarks: Both models were evaluated on the GPQA Diamond benchmark. GPT-5.4 nano scored 82.8%, while Grok 4.20 scored 90%.
Cost Efficiency: GPT-5.4 nano pricing ($0.2/M input, $1.25/M output) is 6.5x cheaper than Grok 4.20 ($2/M input, $6/M output).
Was this recommendation helpful?
Benchmarks & Scores
Coding (swe-bench-pro)Winner (+0.6%)
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)6.5x cheaper
$0.46Input: $0.20 | Output: $1.25Context Window
400k tokensBenchmarks & Scores
Coding (swe-bench-pro)
51.8%complex codebases, multi-file repositories, and architectural planning
Reasoning (gpqa-diamond)Winner (+7.2%)
90%graduate-level science QA
Cost & Context
Cost (per 1M tokens)
$3.00Input: $2.00 | Output: $6.00Context WindowLarger
1.05M tokensFrequently Asked Questions about GPT-5.4 nano vs Grok 4.20
GPT-5.4 nano is cheaper than Grok 4.20. GPT-5.4 nano has a blended cost of $0.46/1M tokens, which is about 6.5x cheaper than Grok 4.20 at $3.00/1M tokens.
GPT-5.4 nano is better for coding tasks on this benchmark. It scores 52.4% on swe-bench-pro (complex codebases, multi-file repositories, and architectural planning) compared to Grok 4.20 which scores 51.8%.
Related Matchups
Explore similar comparisons for GPT-5.4 nano and Grok 4.20.
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.