OpenAI Proprietary Released Mar 17, 2026 Updated
GPT-5.4 mini
ToolsGuide Scores, rankings, test results and price.
Model summary
Summary
GPT-5.4 mini is OpenAI's model, released Mar 17, 2026. It's ranked in 3 categories and does best at vision: #41 of 167, with a ToolsGuide Score of 490 against a median of 346.
It also ranks #111 of 416 for text (351), #99 of 147 for coding (278).
It costs $0.75 per million input tokens and $4.50 per million output tokens, below the median vision model ($1.25).
It has published results on 27 tests.
Specifications
- Creator
OpenAI- Licence
- Proprietary
- Released
- Mar 17, 2026
- Context window
- 400K tokens
- Input price
- $0.75 / 1M
- Output price
- $4.50 / 1M
- Tests reported
- 27
- Settings ranked
- gpt-5.4-mini-high, GPT-5.4 mini (High)
Model comparison
Against the ten best vision models.
Vision score
ToolsGuide Score out of 1,000 · Higher is better
Text score
ToolsGuide Score out of 1,000 · Higher is better
Input price
USD per 1M input tokens · Lower is better
Leaderboards
Where GPT-5.4 mini sits among the top 20 in each category.
Text
#111 of 416 · ToolsGuide Score out of 1,000, where 1,000 is a flawless model
Vision
#41 of 167 · ToolsGuide Score out of 1,000, where 1,000 is a flawless model
Coding
#99 of 147 · ToolsGuide Score out of 1,000, where 1,000 is a flawless model
By task
Scored from votes on each kind of prompt alone, on the same 1,000-point scale.
Score against price
Vision · the 10 priced models ranked closest · up and to the left is better value
Against its nearest rivals
Text prompts by kind · ToolsGuide Score from votes · hover for values
-
GPT-5.4 mini -
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite
-
GPT-6 Sol (Max)
Text
gpt-5.4-mini-high · hover a bar for its rank
Vision
GPT-5.4 mini (High) · hover a bar for its rank
Coding
GPT-5.4 mini (High) · hover a bar for its rank
Test results
Every test GPT-5.4 mini has a published result on, out of 100%, with its rank among the models that took it.
GPQA
#47 / 256Graduate-level science questions written to be hard to look up.
88.0%
Verified
Humanity's Last Exam
#58 / 108Humanity's Last Exam (HLE) is a multi-modal academic benchmark with 2,500 questions across mathematics, humanities, and natural sciences, designed to test LLM capabilities at the frontier of human knowledge with unambiguous, verifiable solutions
28.2%
Self-reported · In the text score· In the vision score
MMMU-Pro
#28 / 73College-level questions that need both an image and text to answer.
76.6%
Self-reported · In the vision score
SWE-Bench Pro
#44 / 61Harder, longer software engineering tasks from real codebases.
54.4%
Self-reported · In the coding score
Terminal-Bench 2.0
#20 / 54Getting real work done in a command-line terminal.
60.0%
Self-reported
Toolathlon
#33 / 42Tool Decathlon is a comprehensive benchmark for evaluating AI agents' ability to use multiple tools across diverse task categories. It measures proficiency in tool selection, sequencing, and execution across ten different tool-use scenarios.
42.9%
Self-reported · In the agents score
Multi-Challenge
#38 / 41MultiChallenge is a realistic multi-turn conversation evaluation benchmark that challenges frontier LLMs across four key categories: instruction retention (maintaining instructions throughout conversations), inference memory (recalling and connecting details from previous turns), reliable versioned editing (adapting to evolving instructions during collaborative editing), and self-coherence (avoiding contradictions in responses). The benchmark evaluates models on sustained, contextually complex dialogues across diverse topics including travel planning, technical documentation, and professional communication.
33.5%
Verified
MCP Atlas
#34 / 38MCP Atlas is a benchmark for evaluating AI models on scaled tool use capabilities, measuring how well models can coordinate and utilize multiple tools across complex multi-step tasks.
57.7%
Self-reported
Tau2 Telecom
#13 / 36τ²-Bench telecom domain evaluates conversational agents in a dual-control environment modeled as a Dec-POMDP, where both agent and user use tools in shared telecommunications troubleshooting scenarios that test coordination and communication capabilities.
93.4%
Self-reported
MRCR v2 (8-needle)
#17 / 32MRCR v2 (8-needle) is a variant of the Multi-Round Coreference Resolution benchmark that includes 8 needle items to retrieve from long contexts. This tests models' ability to simultaneously track and reason about multiple pieces of information across extended conversations.
33.6%
Verified · In the text score
Finance Agent v2
#12 / 28Finance Agent v2 is an agentic financial-analysis benchmark from Vals that evaluates models on real-world finance workflows, measuring their ability to retrieve and reason over financial documents, perform multi-step calculations, and produce accurate analyses.
45.4%
Self-reported
OSWorld-Verified
#19 / 28OSWorld-Verified is a verified subset of OSWorld, a scalable real computer environment for multimodal agents supporting task setup, execution-based evaluation, and interactive learning across Ubuntu, Windows, and macOS.
72.1%
Self-reported
HealthBench Hard
#12 / 24A challenging variation of HealthBench that evaluates large language models' performance and safety in healthcare through 5,000 multi-turn conversations with particularly rigorous evaluation criteria validated by 262 physicians from 60 countries
23.3%
Verified
FACTS Grounding
#20 / 20A benchmark evaluating language models' ability to generate factually accurate and well-grounded responses based on long-form input context, comprising 1,719 examples with documents up to 32k tokens requiring detailed responses that are fully grounded in provided documents
30.8%
Verified
OmniDocBench 1.5
#12 / 20OmniDocBench 1.5 is a comprehensive benchmark for evaluating multimodal large language models on document understanding tasks, including OCR, document parsing, information extraction, and visual question answering across diverse document types. Lower Overall Edit Distance scores are better.
87.4%
Self-reported
Legal Agent Benchmark
#12 / 15The Legal Agent Benchmark (LAB) is Harvey's open-source benchmark for evaluating AI agents on complex, long-horizon legal work. Tasks are scored under an all-pass standard against expert-curated rubrics, where a task passes only if every required rubric criterion (facts, conclusions, citations, structure, and analytical moves) passes.
0.0%
Self-reported
Graphwalks BFS <128k
#5 / 13A graph reasoning benchmark that evaluates language models' ability to perform breadth-first search (BFS) operations on graphs with context length under 128k tokens, returning nodes reachable at specified depths.
76.3%
Self-reported
HealthBench (hard)
#5 / 1323.3%
Unverified
Graphwalks parents <128k
#6 / 12A graph reasoning benchmark that evaluates language models' ability to find parent nodes in graphs with context length under 128k tokens, requiring understanding of graph structure and edge relationships.
71.5%
Self-reported
GPQA (diamond)
#9 / 10Graduate-level Google-Proof Q&A benchmark with paper-aligned full and diamond subsets.
60.6%
Unverified
mrcr-v2 (8needle_32768_65536)
#7 / 1016.7%
Unverified
mrcr-v2 (8needle_4096_8192)
#7 / 1036.6%
Unverified
MultiChallenge (default)
#8 / 933.5%
Unverified
mrcr-v2 (8needle_upto_128k)
#6 / 923.8%
Unverified
facts-grounding (default)
#8 / 8FACTS Grounding 1.0 — 860 public examples from Google DeepMind (CC-BY-4.0)
30.8%
Unverified
nolima (hard_16k)
#4 / 69.2%
Independent
nolima (hard_4k)
#3 / 540.0%
Independent