OpenAIGPT-5.4VSOpenAIGPT-5.5
Our Take
We recommend GPT-5.4 for a 2.0x API cost saving at identical performance levels. While both models deliver similar intelligence, GPT-5.4 is the optimal choice for high-volume pipelines. Choose GPT-5.4 for budget efficiency without sacrificing quality.
▶WHY?
Benchmark Calculations & Evidence:
Performance Match: Both models perform almost identically, with an average score gap of just 0.8% across reasoning and coding benchmarks.
Coding Benchmarks: Both models were evaluated on the SWE-bench Pro benchmark. GPT-5.4 scored 57.7%, while GPT-5.5 scored 58.6%.
Reasoning Benchmarks: Both models were evaluated on the GPQA Diamond benchmark. GPT-5.4 scored 92.8%, while GPT-5.5 scored 93.6%.
Cost Efficiency: GPT-5.4 pricing ($2.5/M input, $15/M output) is 2.0x cheaper than GPT-5.5 ($5/M input, $30/M output).
Was this recommendation helpful?
Benchmarks & Scores
Coding (swe-bench-pro)
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)2.0x cheaper
$5.63Input: $2.50 | Output: $15.00Context Window
1.05M tokensBenchmarks & Scores
Coding (swe-bench-pro)Winner (+0.9%)
58.6%complex codebases, multi-file repositories, and architectural planning
Reasoning (gpqa-diamond)Winner (+0.8%)
93.6%graduate-level science QA
Cost & Context
Cost (per 1M tokens)
$11.25Input: $5.00 | Output: $30.00Context Window
1.05M tokensFrequently Asked Questions about GPT-5.4 vs GPT-5.5
GPT-5.4 is cheaper than GPT-5.5. GPT-5.4 has a blended cost of $5.63/1M tokens, which is about 2.0x 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 which scores 57.7%.
Related Matchups
Explore similar comparisons for GPT-5.4 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.