Compare · ModelsLive · 2 picked · head to head
Gemini 3 Pro vs GPT-5.4
Side by side · benchmarks, pricing, and signals you can act on.
Winner summary
GPT-5.4 wins on 17/24 benchmarks
GPT-5.4 wins 17 of 24 shared benchmarks. Leads in speed · agentic · reasoning.
Category leads
speed·GPT-5.4agentic·GPT-5.4reasoning·GPT-5.4arena·Gemini 3 Proknowledge·GPT-5.4general·GPT-5.4math·Gemini 3 Procoding·GPT-5.4
Hype vs Reality
Attention vs performance
Gemini 3 Pro
#71 by perf·#6 by attention
GPT-5.4
#104 by perf·#4 by attention
Vendor risk
Who is behind the model
Google DeepMind
$4.20T·Tier 1
OpenAI
$840.0B·Tier 1
Head to head
24 benchmarks · 2 models
Gemini 3 ProGPT-5.4
Artificial Analysis · Agentic Index
GPT-5.4 leads by +24.4
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 Pro
45.0
GPT-5.4
69.4
Artificial Analysis · Coding Index
GPT-5.4 leads by +17.9
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 Pro
39.4
GPT-5.4
57.3
Artificial Analysis · Quality Index
GPT-5.4 leads by +15.9
Gemini 3 Pro
41.3
GPT-5.4
57.2
APEX-Agents
GPT-5.4 leads by +34.0
APEX-Agents · evaluates AI agents on complex, multi-step tasks requiring planning, tool use, and autonomous decision-making in realistic environments.
Gemini 3 Pro
18.4
GPT-5.4
52.4
ARC-AGI
GPT-5.4 leads by +18.7
ARC-AGI · the original Abstraction and Reasoning Corpus, testing whether AI can solve novel visual pattern recognition tasks without memorization.
Gemini 3 Pro
75.0
GPT-5.4
93.7
ARC-AGI-2
GPT-5.4 leads by +42.8
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 Pro
31.1
GPT-5.4
74.0
Chatbot Arena Elo · Coding
Gemini 3 Pro leads by +43.9
Gemini 3 Pro
1439.0
GPT-5.4
1395.0
Chatbot Arena Elo · Overall
Gemini 3 Pro leads by +20.7
Gemini 3 Pro
1485.5
GPT-5.4
1464.8
Chess Puzzles
GPT-5.4 leads by +13.7
Chess Puzzles · tests strategic and tactical reasoning by having models solve chess puzzle positions, evaluating lookahead and pattern recognition abilities.
Gemini 3 Pro
27.4
GPT-5.4
41.1
Cl Bench
GPT-5.4 leads by +12.1
Gemini 3 Pro
15.8
GPT-5.4
27.9
DeepResearch Bench
Gemini 3 Pro leads by +11.2
DeepResearch Bench · evaluates AI on complex multi-step research tasks requiring information gathering, synthesis, and producing comprehensive analyses.
Gemini 3 Pro
46.3
GPT-5.4
35.1
FrontierMath-2025-02-28-Private
Gemini 3 Pro leads by +18.4
FrontierMath (Feb 2025) · original research-level math problems created by mathematicians, testing capabilities at the boundary of current AI mathematical reasoning.
Gemini 3 Pro
66.0
GPT-5.4
47.6
FrontierMath-Tier-4-2025-07-01-Private
Gemini 3 Pro leads by +4.1
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 Pro
31.3
GPT-5.4
27.1
GPQA diamond
GPT-5.4 leads by +0.9
Graduate-Level Google-Proof QA (Diamond set) · expert-crafted questions in physics, biology, and chemistry that are difficult even for domain PhDs.
Gemini 3 Pro
90.2
GPT-5.4
91.1
GSO-Bench
GPT-5.4 leads by +12.7
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 Pro
18.6
GPT-5.4
31.4
HLE
Gemini 3 Pro leads by +1.3
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 Pro
34.4
GPT-5.4
33.0
Metr Time Horizons
GPT-5.4 leads by +3.4
Gemini 3 Pro
71.0
GPT-5.4
74.3
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025
GPT-5.4 leads by +6.4
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 · simulated American Invitational Mathematics Examination problems testing advanced problem-solving skills.
Gemini 3 Pro
91.4
GPT-5.4
97.8
PostTrainBench
GPT-5.4 leads by +0.9
Gemini 3 Pro
18.1
GPT-5.4
19.0
Proofbench
GPT-5.4 leads by +36.0
Gemini 3 Pro
20.0
GPT-5.4
56.0
SimpleQA Verified
Gemini 3 Pro leads by +27.8
SimpleQA Verified · short factual questions with verified answers, measuring factual accuracy and the tendency to hallucinate or provide incorrect information.
Gemini 3 Pro
72.9
GPT-5.4
45.1
SWE-Bench verified
GPT-5.4 leads by +3.9
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 Pro
72.9
GPT-5.4
76.9
Terminal Bench
GPT-5.4 leads by +12.4
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 Pro
69.4
GPT-5.4
81.8
WeirdML
GPT-5.4 leads by +7.8
WeirdML · tests models on unusual and adversarial machine learning tasks that require creative problem-solving beyond standard patterns.
Gemini 3 Pro
69.9
GPT-5.4
77.7
Full benchmark table
| Benchmark | Gemini 3 Pro | 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?" | 45.0 | 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. | 39.4 | 57.3 |
Artificial Analysis · Quality Index | 41.3 | 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. | 18.4 | 52.4 |
ARC-AGI ARC-AGI · the original Abstraction and Reasoning Corpus, testing whether AI can solve novel visual pattern recognition tasks without memorization. | 75.0 | 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. | 31.1 | 74.0 |
Chatbot Arena Elo · Coding | 1439.0 | 1395.0 |
Chatbot Arena Elo · Overall | 1485.5 | 1464.8 |
Chess Puzzles Chess Puzzles · tests strategic and tactical reasoning by having models solve chess puzzle positions, evaluating lookahead and pattern recognition abilities. | 27.4 | 41.1 |
Cl Bench | 15.8 | 27.9 |
DeepResearch Bench DeepResearch Bench · evaluates AI on complex multi-step research tasks requiring information gathering, synthesis, and producing comprehensive analyses. | 46.3 | 35.1 |
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. | 66.0 | 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. | 31.3 | 27.1 |
GPQA diamond Graduate-Level Google-Proof QA (Diamond set) · expert-crafted questions in physics, biology, and chemistry that are difficult even for domain PhDs. | 90.2 | 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. | 18.6 | 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%. | 34.4 | 33.0 |
Metr Time Horizons | 71.0 | 74.3 |
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 · simulated American Invitational Mathematics Examination problems testing advanced problem-solving skills. | 91.4 | 97.8 |
PostTrainBench | 18.1 | 19.0 |
Proofbench | 20.0 | 56.0 |
SimpleQA Verified SimpleQA Verified · short factual questions with verified answers, measuring factual accuracy and the tendency to hallucinate or provide incorrect information. | 72.9 | 45.1 |
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. | 72.9 | 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. | 69.4 | 81.8 |
WeirdML WeirdML · tests models on unusual and adversarial machine learning tasks that require creative problem-solving beyond standard patterns. | 69.9 | 77.7 |
Pricing · per 1M tokens · projected $/mo at 10M tokens
| Model | Input | Output | Context | Projected $/mo |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| — | — | — | — | |
| $2.50 | $15.00 | 1.1M tokens (~525 books) | $56.25 |