Compare · ModelsLive · 2 picked · head to head
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview vs GPT-5.4
Side by side · benchmarks, pricing, and signals you can act on.
Winner summary
GPT-5.4 wins on 20/34 benchmarks
GPT-5.4 wins 20 of 34 shared benchmarks. Leads in speed · agentic · general.
Category leads
speed·GPT-5.4agentic·GPT-5.4reasoning·Gemini 3.1 Pro Previewarena·Gemini 3.1 Pro Previewknowledge·Gemini 3.1 Pro Previewgeneral·GPT-5.4coding·GPT-5.4math·GPT-5.4
Hype vs Reality
Attention vs performance
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
#146 by perf·#9 by attention
GPT-5.4
#110 by perf·#8 by attention
Best value
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
1.1x better value than GPT-5.4
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
6.9 pts/$
$7.00/M
GPT-5.4
6.0 pts/$
$8.75/M
Vendor risk
Who is behind the model
Google DeepMind
$3.44T·Tier 1
OpenAI
$840.0B·Tier 1
Head to head
34 benchmarks · 2 models
Gemini 3.1 Pro PreviewGPT-5.4
Artificial Analysis · Agentic Index
GPT-5.4 leads by +48.0
Artificial Analysis Agentic Index · a composite score measuring how well a model performs in agentic workflows · multi-step tool use, planning, error recovery, and autonomous task completion. Aggregates results from multiple agentic benchmarks including SWE-bench, tool-use tests, and planning evaluations. The canonical single-number metric for "how good is this model as an agent?"
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
21.4
GPT-5.4
69.4
Artificial Analysis · Coding Index
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview leads by +11.6
Artificial Analysis Coding Index · a composite score that aggregates performance across multiple coding benchmarks into a single index. Tracks code generation quality, debugging ability, multi-language competence, and real-world software engineering tasks. Used by Artificial Analysis to rank model coding capability in a normalized, comparable format. Useful for developers choosing between models for coding-heavy workloads.
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
68.8
GPT-5.4
57.3
Artificial Analysis · Quality Index
GPT-5.4 leads by +27.5
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
29.7
GPT-5.4
57.2
APEX-Agents
GPT-5.4 leads by +17.1
APEX-Agents · evaluates AI agents on complex, multi-step tasks requiring planning, tool use, and autonomous decision-making in realistic environments.
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
35.3
GPT-5.4
52.4
ARC-AGI
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview leads by +4.3
ARC-AGI · the original Abstraction and Reasoning Corpus, testing whether AI can solve novel visual pattern recognition tasks without memorization.
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
98.0
GPT-5.4
93.7
ARC-AGI-2
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview leads by +3.1
ARC-AGI-2 · the second iteration of the Abstraction and Reasoning Corpus, testing novel pattern recognition and abstract reasoning without prior training data.
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
77.1
GPT-5.4
74.0
Chatbot Arena Elo · Coding
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview leads by +51.2
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
1446.2
GPT-5.4
1395.0
Chatbot Arena Elo · Overall
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview leads by +22.2
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
1487.0
GPT-5.4
1464.8
Chess Puzzles
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview leads by +7.4
Chess Puzzles · tests strategic and tactical reasoning by having models solve chess puzzle positions, evaluating lookahead and pattern recognition abilities.
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
52.6
GPT-5.4
45.3
Cl Bench
GPT-5.4 leads by +7.1
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
20.8
GPT-5.4
27.9
Cl Bench Life
GPT-5.4 leads by +4.8
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
16.9
GPT-5.4
21.7
DeepResearch Bench
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview leads by +12.7
DeepResearch Bench · evaluates AI on complex multi-step research tasks requiring information gathering, synthesis, and producing comprehensive analyses.
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
47.8
GPT-5.4
35.1
Deepswe
GPT-5.4 leads by +40.0
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
11.7
GPT-5.4
51.8
Dtbench
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview leads by +4.5
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
95.1
GPT-5.4
90.7
Ebr Bench
GPT-5.4 leads by +11.1
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
14.3
GPT-5.4
25.4
FrontierMath-2025-02-28-Private
GPT-5.4 leads by +10.7
FrontierMath (Feb 2025) · original research-level math problems created by mathematicians, testing capabilities at the boundary of current AI mathematical reasoning.
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
36.9
GPT-5.4
47.6
FrontierMath-Tier-4-2025-07-01-Private
GPT-5.4 leads by +10.4
FrontierMath Tier 4 (Jul 2025) · the most challenging tier of frontier mathematics, containing problems that push the absolute limits of AI mathematical reasoning.
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
16.7
GPT-5.4
27.1
FrontierMath-Tier-4-v2-Private
GPT-5.4 leads by +22.2
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
26.8
GPT-5.4
49.0
FrontierMath-Tiers-1-3-v2-Private
GPT-5.4 leads by +18.9
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
59.6
GPT-5.4
78.6
Furniture Assembly
GPT-5.4 leads by +10.7
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
0.0
GPT-5.4
10.7
GPQA diamond
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview leads by +1.5
Graduate-Level Google-Proof QA (Diamond set) · expert-crafted questions in physics, biology, and chemistry that are difficult even for domain PhDs.
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
92.6
GPT-5.4
91.1
GSO-Bench
GPT-5.4 leads by +8.8
GSO-Bench · evaluates AI models on real-world open-source software engineering tasks, testing the ability to understand and resolve actual GitHub issues.
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
22.6
GPT-5.4
31.4
HLE
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview leads by +10.7
HLE (Humanity's Last Exam) · a reasoning benchmark designed to be the hardest public evaluation of AI. Questions span mathematics, physics, philosophy, and logic · curated to be at or beyond the frontier of human expert capability. Tested with and without tool augmentation. Claude Opus 4.7 scores 46.9% without tools and 54.7% with tools · making it one of the few benchmarks where the top score is below 60%.
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
43.7
GPT-5.4
33.0
Lmca
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview leads by +2.2
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
63.3
GPT-5.4
61.1
Metr Time Horizons
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview leads by +2.7
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
77.0
GPT-5.4
74.3
Mirrorcode
GPT-5.4 leads by +6.7
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
8.9
GPT-5.4
15.6
Mystery Game Puzzles
GPT-5.4 leads by +3.3
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
27.3
GPT-5.4
30.6
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025
GPT-5.4 leads by +2.2
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 · simulated American Invitational Mathematics Examination problems testing advanced problem-solving skills.
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
95.6
GPT-5.4
97.8
PostTrainBench
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview leads by +3.0
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
22.0
GPT-5.4
19.0
Proofbench
GPT-5.4 leads by +30.0
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
26.0
GPT-5.4
56.0
SimpleQA Verified
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview leads by +28.7
SimpleQA Verified · short factual questions with verified answers, measuring factual accuracy and the tendency to hallucinate or provide incorrect information.
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
73.5
GPT-5.4
44.8
SWE-Bench verified
GPT-5.4 leads by +1.2
SWE-bench Verified · 500 human-validated tasks from 12 real Python repositories (Django, Flask, scikit-learn, sympy, and others). Each task requires the model to produce a git patch that resolves a real GitHub issue and passes the test suite. The verified subset eliminates ambiguous tasks from the original SWE-bench. Claude Mythos Preview leads at 93.9%, crossing 90% for the first time in 2026. Opus 4.6 scores 80.8%. The benchmark remains the most-cited evaluation for code-generation capability.
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
75.6
GPT-5.4
76.9
Terminal Bench
GPT-5.4 leads by +1.6
Terminal-Bench 2.0 · evaluates AI agents on real terminal-based coding tasks · writing scripts, debugging, running tests, and managing projects entirely through command-line interaction. Tests both code quality and terminal fluency. Claude Opus 4.7 scores 69.4%, demonstrating significant agentic terminal competence.
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
80.2
GPT-5.4
81.8
WeirdML
GPT-5.4 leads by +5.6
WeirdML · tests models on unusual and adversarial machine learning tasks that require creative problem-solving beyond standard patterns.
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
72.1
GPT-5.4
77.7
Full benchmark table
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview | GPT-5.4 |
|---|---|---|
Artificial Analysis · Agentic Index Artificial Analysis Agentic Index · a composite score measuring how well a model performs in agentic workflows · multi-step tool use, planning, error recovery, and autonomous task completion. Aggregates results from multiple agentic benchmarks including SWE-bench, tool-use tests, and planning evaluations. The canonical single-number metric for "how good is this model as an agent?" | 21.4 | 69.4 |
Artificial Analysis · Coding Index Artificial Analysis Coding Index · a composite score that aggregates performance across multiple coding benchmarks into a single index. Tracks code generation quality, debugging ability, multi-language competence, and real-world software engineering tasks. Used by Artificial Analysis to rank model coding capability in a normalized, comparable format. Useful for developers choosing between models for coding-heavy workloads. | 68.8 | 57.3 |
Artificial Analysis · Quality Index | 29.7 | 57.2 |
APEX-Agents APEX-Agents · evaluates AI agents on complex, multi-step tasks requiring planning, tool use, and autonomous decision-making in realistic environments. | 35.3 | 52.4 |
ARC-AGI ARC-AGI · the original Abstraction and Reasoning Corpus, testing whether AI can solve novel visual pattern recognition tasks without memorization. | 98.0 | 93.7 |
ARC-AGI-2 ARC-AGI-2 · the second iteration of the Abstraction and Reasoning Corpus, testing novel pattern recognition and abstract reasoning without prior training data. | 77.1 | 74.0 |
Chatbot Arena Elo · Coding | 1446.2 | 1395.0 |
Chatbot Arena Elo · Overall | 1487.0 | 1464.8 |
Chess Puzzles Chess Puzzles · tests strategic and tactical reasoning by having models solve chess puzzle positions, evaluating lookahead and pattern recognition abilities. | 52.6 | 45.3 |
Cl Bench | 20.8 | 27.9 |
Cl Bench Life | 16.9 | 21.7 |
DeepResearch Bench DeepResearch Bench · evaluates AI on complex multi-step research tasks requiring information gathering, synthesis, and producing comprehensive analyses. | 47.8 | 35.1 |
Deepswe | 11.7 | 51.8 |
Dtbench | 95.1 | 90.7 |
Ebr Bench | 14.3 | 25.4 |
FrontierMath-2025-02-28-Private FrontierMath (Feb 2025) · original research-level math problems created by mathematicians, testing capabilities at the boundary of current AI mathematical reasoning. | 36.9 | 47.6 |
FrontierMath-Tier-4-2025-07-01-Private FrontierMath Tier 4 (Jul 2025) · the most challenging tier of frontier mathematics, containing problems that push the absolute limits of AI mathematical reasoning. | 16.7 | 27.1 |
FrontierMath-Tier-4-v2-Private | 26.8 | 49.0 |
FrontierMath-Tiers-1-3-v2-Private | 59.6 | 78.6 |
Furniture Assembly | 0.0 | 10.7 |
GPQA diamond Graduate-Level Google-Proof QA (Diamond set) · expert-crafted questions in physics, biology, and chemistry that are difficult even for domain PhDs. | 92.6 | 91.1 |
GSO-Bench GSO-Bench · evaluates AI models on real-world open-source software engineering tasks, testing the ability to understand and resolve actual GitHub issues. | 22.6 | 31.4 |
HLE HLE (Humanity's Last Exam) · a reasoning benchmark designed to be the hardest public evaluation of AI. Questions span mathematics, physics, philosophy, and logic · curated to be at or beyond the frontier of human expert capability. Tested with and without tool augmentation. Claude Opus 4.7 scores 46.9% without tools and 54.7% with tools · making it one of the few benchmarks where the top score is below 60%. | 43.7 | 33.0 |
Lmca | 63.3 | 61.1 |
Metr Time Horizons | 77.0 | 74.3 |
Mirrorcode | 8.9 | 15.6 |
Mystery Game Puzzles | 27.3 | 30.6 |
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 · simulated American Invitational Mathematics Examination problems testing advanced problem-solving skills. | 95.6 | 97.8 |
PostTrainBench | 22.0 | 19.0 |
Proofbench | 26.0 | 56.0 |
SimpleQA Verified SimpleQA Verified · short factual questions with verified answers, measuring factual accuracy and the tendency to hallucinate or provide incorrect information. | 73.5 | 44.8 |
SWE-Bench verified SWE-bench Verified · 500 human-validated tasks from 12 real Python repositories (Django, Flask, scikit-learn, sympy, and others). Each task requires the model to produce a git patch that resolves a real GitHub issue and passes the test suite. The verified subset eliminates ambiguous tasks from the original SWE-bench. Claude Mythos Preview leads at 93.9%, crossing 90% for the first time in 2026. Opus 4.6 scores 80.8%. The benchmark remains the most-cited evaluation for code-generation capability. | 75.6 | 76.9 |
Terminal Bench Terminal-Bench 2.0 · evaluates AI agents on real terminal-based coding tasks · writing scripts, debugging, running tests, and managing projects entirely through command-line interaction. Tests both code quality and terminal fluency. Claude Opus 4.7 scores 69.4%, demonstrating significant agentic terminal competence. | 80.2 | 81.8 |
WeirdML WeirdML · tests models on unusual and adversarial machine learning tasks that require creative problem-solving beyond standard patterns. | 72.1 | 77.7 |
Pricing · per 1M tokens · projected $/mo at 10M tokens
| Model | Input | Output | Context | Projected $/mo |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| $2.00 | $12.00 | 1.0M tokens (~524 books) | $45.00 | |
| $2.50 | $15.00 | 1.1M tokens (~525 books) | $56.25 |