# GPT-4o vs o1

> o1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 40.6 to 28.5 on the Noometry Index. GPT-4o costs 6.0× less per token, which makes it the better buy when o1's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/gpt-4o-vs-o1
- Last updated: 2026-10-10
- Shared benchmarks: 51

## Summary

- They share 51 benchmarks with published results for both. GPT-4o scores higher in 1 category and o1 in 9 categories; 9 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where o1 leads 34.9 to 10.2.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 6.4% for GPT-4o and 73.3% for o1.
- GPT-4o is cheaper at $2.50 / $10 per million input/output tokens, against $15 / $60 for o1.
- o1 accepts more context: 200K tokens versus 128K.

## Snapshot

| | GPT-4o | o1 |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | OpenAI | OpenAI |
| Noometry Index | 28.5 | 40.6 |
| Rank | 316 | 140 |
| Context | 128K | 200K |
| Input $/M | $2.50 | $15 |
| Output $/M | $10 | $60 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |

## Coding

- GPT-4o: 25.1 (#323)
- o1: 45.7 (#64)

| Benchmark | GPT-4o | o1 |
|---|---|---|
| Aider Polyglot | 45.3% | 61.7% |
| WeirdML | 25.1% | 47.6% |
| LiveBench Coding | 51.4% | 69.7% |
| LMArena Coding | 1297 | 1367 |
| CadEval | 26% | 56% |
| HumanEval+ | 87.2% | 89% |
| MBPP+ | 72.2% | 80.2% |
| SWE-bench Verified | 31% | — |
| SWE-bench Verified (bash only) | 21.6% | — |
| GSO | 0% | — |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | 51.1% | — |
| BigCodeBench Complete | 61.1% | — |

## Agentic & Tool Use

- GPT-4o: 20.8 (#133)
- o1: 24.3 (#111)

| Benchmark | GPT-4o | o1 |
|---|---|---|
| Cybench | 12.5% | 10% |
| METR Time Horizons | 40.8% | 51.1% |
| GDPval | 9.9% | — |
| TheAgentCompany | 8.6% | — |
| BALROG | 32.3% | — |
| LMArena Search | 1006 | — |

## Reasoning

- GPT-4o: 9.4 (#338)
- o1: 27.5 (#103)

| Benchmark | GPT-4o | o1 |
|---|---|---|
| SimpleBench | 17.8% | 41.7% |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 4.5% | 30.7% |
| Chess Puzzles | 13% | 15% |
| EnigmaEval | 0.8% | 5.7% |
| LiveBench Reasoning | 55.8% | 91.6% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1281 | 1372 |
| DTBench | 64.5% | 74.7% |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | 60.9% | 65.5% |
| LMCA | 16.6% | 22.3% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 128.97 | 141.92 |
| LiveBench | 55.3% | 75.7% |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 0% | — |
| CritPt | 0% | — |
| ForecastBench | 57.7 | — |

## Math

- GPT-4o: 10.2 (#303)
- o1: 34.9 (#150)

| Benchmark | GPT-4o | o1 |
|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 0.4% | 14.7% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 6.4% | 73.3% |
| LiveBench Math | 49.5% | 80.3% |
| LMArena Math | 1285 | 1388 |
| MATH Level 5 | 53.3% | 94.7% |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 0.3% | 9.3% |
| Omni-MATH | 29.3% | — |

## Knowledge

- GPT-4o: 28.8 (#235)
- o1: 41.5 (#101)

| Benchmark | GPT-4o | o1 |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 49.2% | 76.8% |
| Humanity's Last Exam | 2.7% | 8% |
| SimpleQA Verified | 26% | 41.1% |
| Confabulations | 15.3% | 11.7% |
| LMArena Expert | 1250 | 1362 |
| MMLU-Pro | 71.3% | — |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 9.6% | — |
| GPQA (HELM) | 52% | — |
| MMLU | 88.1% | — |

## Multimodal

- GPT-4o: 33.9 (#85)
- o1: 33.6 (#87)

| Benchmark | GPT-4o | o1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1137 | 1168 |
| GeoBench | 71% | 80% |
| VPCT | 40% | 37% |
| Video-MME | 71.9% | — |
| ScienceQA | 88.5% | — |
| SpatialViz-Bench | — | 41.4% |

## Multilingual

- GPT-4o: 43.4 (#181)
- o1: 48.8 (#137)

| Benchmark | GPT-4o | o1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1283 | 1359 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1277 | 1394 |
| LMArena French | 1303 | 1343 |
| LMArena German | 1282 | 1337 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1257 | 1346 |
| LMArena Korean | 1234 | 1396 |
| LMArena Russian | 1286 | 1356 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1292 | 1345 |

## Instruction Following

- GPT-4o: 66.8 (#202)
- o1: 75.0 (#82)

| Benchmark | GPT-4o | o1 |
|---|---|---|
| LiveBench Instruction Following | 68.6% | 81.5% |
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1278 | 1368 |
| IFEval | 81.7% | — |

## Long Context

- GPT-4o: 39.4 (#174)
- o1: 50.3 (#9)

| Benchmark | GPT-4o | o1 |
|---|---|---|
| Fiction.LiveBench | 66.7% | 83.3% |
| LMArena Longer Query | 1289 | 1378 |

## Writing & Preference

- GPT-4o: 52.8 (#160)
- o1: 55.8 (#139)

| Benchmark | GPT-4o | o1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1300 | 1366 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1291 | 1347 |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | 81.8% | 70.2% |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1302 | 1368 |
| LiveBench Language | 47.6% | 65.4% |
| WildBench | 82.8% | — |

## FAQ

### Is GPT-4o better than o1?

o1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 40.6 to 28.5 on the Noometry Index. GPT-4o costs 6.0× less per token, which makes it the better buy when o1's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

### Which is cheaper, GPT-4o or o1?

GPT-4o is cheaper. It lists at $2.50 per million input tokens and $10 per million output tokens; o1 lists at $15 and $60.

### Is GPT-4o or o1 better for coding?

o1 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 45.7 versus 25.1 in the Noometry coding category.

### Which has the bigger context window?

o1 does, with 200K tokens against 128K.

### How many benchmarks do GPT-4o and o1 share?

51 benchmarks have published results for both models. GPT-4o has 72 scored results on Noometry and o1 has 52.