Model comparison
Gemini 2.5 Flash vs GPT-5.4 nano
GPT-5.4 nano is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.9 to 39.3 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 32 shared benchmarks.
GoogleSummary
- They share 32 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemini 2.5 Flash scores higher in 4 categories and GPT-5.4 nano in 5 categories; 9 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in coding, where GPT-5.4 nano leads 43.6 to 35.8.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is ARC-AGI-1: 33.3% for Gemini 2.5 Flash and 51.5% for GPT-5.4 nano.
- GPT-5.4 nano is cheaper at $0.20 / $1.25 per million input/output tokens, against $0.30 / $2.50 for Gemini 2.5 Flash.
- Gemini 2.5 Flash accepts more context: 1.05M tokens versus 400K.
Side by side
| Gemini 2.5 Flash | GPT-5.4 nano | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | OpenAI | |
| Noometry Index | 39.3 | 41.9 |
| Released | 2025-04-17 | 2026-03-17 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Context window | 1.05M | 400K |
| Max output | 66K | 128K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.30 | $0.20 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $2.50 | $1.25 |
| Results tracked | 54 | 40 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding GPT-5.4 nano leads
Gemini 2.5 Flash: 35.8 (#220), GPT-5.4 nano: 43.6 (#84)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash | GPT-5.4 nano |
|---|---|---|
| WeirdML | 41.9% | 49.2% |
| LMArena Coding | 1424 | 1405 |
| ALE-Bench | 661.88 | 1,005 |
| SWE-bench Verified (bash only) | 28.7% | — |
| Aider Polyglot | 55.1% | — |
| SciCode | — | 46.9% |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Gemini 2.5 Flash: 30.8 (#74), GPT-5.4 nano: —
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash | GPT-5.4 nano |
|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench | 17.1% | — |
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | 56.2% | — |
| TheAgentCompany | 41.1% | — |
| BALROG | 33.5% | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | 548.84 | — |
Reasoning GPT-5.4 nano leads
Gemini 2.5 Flash: 18.1 (#286), GPT-5.4 nano: 23.7 (#173)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash | GPT-5.4 nano |
|---|---|---|
| ARC-AGI-2 | 2.5% | 5.7% |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 56.8% | 39.7% |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 33.3% | 51.5% |
| CritPt | 1.1% | 9.3% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1422 | 1381 |
| DTBench | 76.5% | 80.3% |
| LMCA | 27.5% | 36.9% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 143.03 | 145.81 |
| ForecastBench | 60.6 | 57.3 |
| SimpleBench | 41.2% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 30% |
| EnigmaEval | 2.7% | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | — | 9% |
Math GPT-5.4 nano leads
Gemini 2.5 Flash: 39.9 (#98), GPT-5.4 nano: 40.9 (#88)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash | GPT-5.4 nano |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 73.1% | 87.8% |
| LMArena Math | 1415 | 1406 |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 4.8% | 25.9% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | 4.2% | 6.3% |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | — | 44.9% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | — | 12.2% |
| ProofBench | — | 5% |
| Omni-MATH | 38.5% | — |
Knowledge GPT-5.4 nano leads
Gemini 2.5 Flash: 36.4 (#168), GPT-5.4 nano: 41.9 (#103)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash | GPT-5.4 nano |
|---|---|---|
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 7.8% | 3.1% |
| LMArena Expert | 1426 | 1396 |
| GPQA Diamond | — | 78.5% |
| Humanity's Last Exam | 12.1% | — |
| SimpleQA Verified | — | 11.7% |
| MMLU-Pro | 63.9% | — |
| Confabulations | 16.8% | — |
| GPQA (HELM) | 39% | — |
Multimodal Gemini 2.5 Flash leads
Gemini 2.5 Flash: 41.8 (#32), GPT-5.4 nano: 36.7 (#78)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash | GPT-5.4 nano |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1253 | 1196 |
| GeoBench | 76% | — |
| VPCT | 46.2% | — |
| SpatialViz-Bench | 36.9% | — |
Multilingual Gemini 2.5 Flash leads
Gemini 2.5 Flash: 52.3 (#88), GPT-5.4 nano: 48.6 (#140)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash | GPT-5.4 nano |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1409 | 1359 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1450 | 1392 |
| LMArena French | 1433 | 1396 |
| LMArena German | 1418 | 1367 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1405 | 1343 |
| LMArena Korean | 1385 | 1320 |
| LMArena Russian | 1415 | 1363 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1421 | 1371 |
Instruction Following Gemini 2.5 Flash leads
Gemini 2.5 Flash: 75.7 (#54), GPT-5.4 nano: 71.9 (#144)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash | GPT-5.4 nano |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1405 | 1362 |
| IFEval | 89.8% | — |
Long Context Gemini 2.5 Flash leads
Gemini 2.5 Flash: 47.5 (#17), GPT-5.4 nano: 41.6 (#137)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash | GPT-5.4 nano |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1419 | 1366 |
| Fiction.LiveBench | 77.8% | — |
Writing & Preference GPT-5.4 nano leads
Gemini 2.5 Flash: 53.8 (#157), GPT-5.4 nano: 55.7 (#142)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash | GPT-5.4 nano |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1417 | 1372 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1400 | 1314 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1408 | 1382 |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | 76.5% | — |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1137 | — |
| WildBench | 81.7% | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Gemini 2.5 Flash better than GPT-5.4 nano?
GPT-5.4 nano is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.9 to 39.3 on the Noometry Index.
Which is cheaper, Gemini 2.5 Flash or GPT-5.4 nano?
GPT-5.4 nano is cheaper. It lists at $0.20 per million input tokens and $1.25 per million output tokens; Gemini 2.5 Flash lists at $0.30 and $2.50.
Is Gemini 2.5 Flash or GPT-5.4 nano better for coding?
GPT-5.4 nano scores higher on coding benchmarks: 43.6 versus 35.8 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Gemini 2.5 Flash does, with 1.05M tokens against 400K.
How many benchmarks do Gemini 2.5 Flash and GPT-5.4 nano share?
32 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemini 2.5 Flash has 54 scored results on Noometry and GPT-5.4 nano has 40.