Compare · ModelsLive · 2 picked · head to head
GPT-5.4 vs GPT-5.2
Side by side · benchmarks, pricing, and signals you can act on.
Winner summary
GPT-5.4 wins on 16/19 benchmarks
GPT-5.4 wins 16 of 19 shared benchmarks. Leads in agentic · reasoning · arena.
Category leads
agentic·GPT-5.4reasoning·GPT-5.4arena·GPT-5.4knowledge·GPT-5.4math·GPT-5.4coding·GPT-5.4
Hype vs Reality
Attention vs performance
GPT-5.4
#61 by perf·no signal
GPT-5.2
#93 by perf·no signal
Best value
GPT-5.2
1.0x better value than GPT-5.4
GPT-5.4
6.7 pts/$
$8.75/M
GPT-5.2
6.8 pts/$
$7.88/M
Vendor risk
Who is behind the model
OpenAI
$840.0B·Tier 1
OpenAI
$840.0B·Tier 1
Head to head
19 benchmarks · 2 models
GPT-5.4GPT-5.2
APEX-Agents
GPT-5.4 leads by +1.6
APEX-Agents · evaluates AI agents on complex, multi-step tasks requiring planning, tool use, and autonomous decision-making in realistic environments.
GPT-5.4
35.9
GPT-5.2
34.3
ARC-AGI
GPT-5.4 leads by +7.5
ARC-AGI · the original Abstraction and Reasoning Corpus, testing whether AI can solve novel visual pattern recognition tasks without memorization.
GPT-5.4
93.7
GPT-5.2
86.2
ARC-AGI-2
GPT-5.4 leads by +21.0
ARC-AGI-2 · the second iteration of the Abstraction and Reasoning Corpus, testing novel pattern recognition and abstract reasoning without prior training data.
GPT-5.4
74.0
GPT-5.2
52.9
Chatbot Arena Elo · Coding
GPT-5.4 leads by +6.2
GPT-5.4
1411.1
GPT-5.2
1405.0
Chatbot Arena Elo · Overall
GPT-5.4 leads by +33.1
GPT-5.4
1467.7
GPT-5.2
1434.6
Chess Puzzles
GPT-5.2 leads by +5.0
Chess Puzzles · tests strategic and tactical reasoning by having models solve chess puzzle positions, evaluating lookahead and pattern recognition abilities.
GPT-5.4
44.0
GPT-5.2
49.0
FrontierMath-2025-02-28-Private
GPT-5.4 leads by +6.9
FrontierMath (Feb 2025) · original research-level math problems created by mathematicians, testing capabilities at the boundary of current AI mathematical reasoning.
GPT-5.4
47.6
GPT-5.2
40.7
FrontierMath-Tier-4-2025-07-01-Private
GPT-5.4 leads by +8.3
FrontierMath Tier 4 (Jul 2025) · the most challenging tier of frontier mathematics, containing problems that push the absolute limits of AI mathematical reasoning.
GPT-5.4
27.1
GPT-5.2
18.8
FrontierMath-Tier-4-v2-Private
GPT-5.4 leads by +17.3
GPT-5.4
49.0
GPT-5.2
31.7
FrontierMath-Tiers-1-3-v2-Private
GPT-5.4 leads by +11.2
GPT-5.4
78.6
GPT-5.2
67.4
GPQA diamond
GPT-5.4 leads by +2.5
Graduate-Level Google-Proof QA (Diamond set) · expert-crafted questions in physics, biology, and chemistry that are difficult even for domain PhDs.
GPT-5.4
91.1
GPT-5.2
88.5
GSO-Bench
GPT-5.4 leads by +4.0
GSO-Bench · evaluates AI models on real-world open-source software engineering tasks, testing the ability to understand and resolve actual GitHub issues.
GPT-5.4
31.4
GPT-5.2
27.4
HLE
GPT-5.4 leads by +8.9
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%.
GPT-5.4
33.0
GPT-5.2
24.2
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025
GPT-5.2 leads by +0.8
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 · simulated American Invitational Mathematics Examination problems testing advanced problem-solving skills.
GPT-5.4
95.3
GPT-5.2
96.1
PostTrainBench
GPT-5.2 leads by +1.1
GPT-5.4
20.2
GPT-5.2
21.4
SimpleQA Verified
GPT-5.4 leads by +5.9
SimpleQA Verified · short factual questions with verified answers, measuring factual accuracy and the tendency to hallucinate or provide incorrect information.
GPT-5.4
44.8
GPT-5.2
38.9
SWE-Bench verified
GPT-5.4 leads by +3.1
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.
GPT-5.4
76.9
GPT-5.2
73.8
Terminal Bench
GPT-5.4 leads by +16.9
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.
GPT-5.4
81.8
GPT-5.2
64.9
WeirdML
GPT-5.4 leads by +5.5
WeirdML · tests models on unusual and adversarial machine learning tasks that require creative problem-solving beyond standard patterns.
GPT-5.4
77.7
GPT-5.2
72.2
Full benchmark table
| Benchmark | GPT-5.4 | GPT-5.2 |
|---|---|---|
APEX-Agents APEX-Agents · evaluates AI agents on complex, multi-step tasks requiring planning, tool use, and autonomous decision-making in realistic environments. | 35.9 | 34.3 |
ARC-AGI ARC-AGI · the original Abstraction and Reasoning Corpus, testing whether AI can solve novel visual pattern recognition tasks without memorization. | 93.7 | 86.2 |
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. | 74.0 | 52.9 |
Chatbot Arena Elo · Coding | 1411.1 | 1405.0 |
Chatbot Arena Elo · Overall | 1467.7 | 1434.6 |
Chess Puzzles Chess Puzzles · tests strategic and tactical reasoning by having models solve chess puzzle positions, evaluating lookahead and pattern recognition abilities. | 44.0 | 49.0 |
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. | 47.6 | 40.7 |
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. | 27.1 | 18.8 |
FrontierMath-Tier-4-v2-Private | 49.0 | 31.7 |
FrontierMath-Tiers-1-3-v2-Private | 78.6 | 67.4 |
GPQA diamond Graduate-Level Google-Proof QA (Diamond set) · expert-crafted questions in physics, biology, and chemistry that are difficult even for domain PhDs. | 91.1 | 88.5 |
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. | 31.4 | 27.4 |
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%. | 33.0 | 24.2 |
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 · simulated American Invitational Mathematics Examination problems testing advanced problem-solving skills. | 95.3 | 96.1 |
PostTrainBench | 20.2 | 21.4 |
SimpleQA Verified SimpleQA Verified · short factual questions with verified answers, measuring factual accuracy and the tendency to hallucinate or provide incorrect information. | 44.8 | 38.9 |
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. | 76.9 | 73.8 |
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. | 81.8 | 64.9 |
WeirdML WeirdML · tests models on unusual and adversarial machine learning tasks that require creative problem-solving beyond standard patterns. | 77.7 | 72.2 |
Pricing · per 1M tokens · projected $/mo at 10M tokens