GPT-5.4 Mini vs GPT-5.4 Nano
| Signal | GPT-5.4 Mini | Delta | GPT-5.4 Nano |
|---|---|---|---|
Capabilities | 100 | -- | |
Benchmarks | 90 | -- | |
Pricing | 96 | -3 | |
Context window size | 89 | -- | |
Recency | 100 | -- | |
Output Capacity | 85 | -- | |
| Overall Result | 0 wins | of 6 | 1 wins |
Score History
79.3
current score
Tied
right now
79.3
current score
GPT-5.4 Mini
OpenAI
GPT-5.4 Nano
OpenAI
GPT-5.4 Nano saves you $217.50/month
That's $2610.00/year compared to GPT-5.4 Mini at your current usage level of 100K calls/month.
| Metric | GPT-5.4 Mini | GPT-5.4 Nano | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall Score | 79 | 79 | -- |
| Rank | #93 | #91 | GPT-5.4 Nano |
| Quality Rank | #93 | #91 | GPT-5.4 Nano |
| Adoption Rank | #93 | #91 | GPT-5.4 Nano |
| Parameters | -- | -- | -- |
| Context Window | 400K | 400K | -- |
| Pricing | $0.75/$4.50/M | $0.20/$1.25/M | -- |
| Signal Scores | |||
| Capabilities | 100 | 100 | GPT-5.4 Mini |
| Benchmarks | 90 | 90 | GPT-5.4 Mini |
| Pricing | 96 | 99 | GPT-5.4 Nano |
| Context window size | 89 | 89 | GPT-5.4 Mini |
| Recency | 100 | 100 | GPT-5.4 Mini |
| Output Capacity | 85 | 85 | GPT-5.4 Mini |
Our score (0-100) is driven by benchmark performance (90%) from Arena Elo ratings, MMLU, GPQA, HumanEval, SWE-bench, and 15+ standardized evaluations. Capabilities and context window serve as tiebreakers (10%). Learn more about our methodology.
Scores 79/100 (rank #93), placing it in the top 68% of all 290 models tracked.
Scores 79/100 (rank #91), placing it in the top 69% of all 290 models tracked.
With only a 0-point gap, these models are in the same performance tier. The practical difference in output quality is minimal - your choice should depend on pricing, latency requirements, and specific feature needs.
Choose GPT-5.4 Mini when you need:
- Step-by-step reasoning and chain-of-thought problem solving
Choose GPT-5.4 Nano when you need:
- High-volume production workloads where API costs must be minimized
- Step-by-step reasoning and chain-of-thought problem solving
GPT-5.4 Nano offers 72% better value per quality point. At 1M tokens/day, you'd spend $21.75/month with GPT-5.4 Nano vs $78.75/month with GPT-5.4 Mini - a $57.00 monthly difference.
Both models have comparable response speeds. For most applications, the latency difference is negligible.
When latency matters most: Interactive chatbots, IDE code completion, real-time translation, and user-facing applications where response time directly impacts experience. For batch processing, background summarization, or offline analysis, latency is less critical.
Code generation & review
Based on overall model capabilities and architecture for coding tasks like generating functions, debugging, and refactoring
Customer support chatbot
Suitable for user-facing chat with competitive response times. GPT-5.4 Nano also offers lower per-token costs for high-volume support
Long document analysis
Larger context window (400K tokens) can process longer documents, contracts, and research papers in a single pass
Batch data extraction
Lower output pricing ($1.25/M) reduces costs when processing thousands of records daily
Creative writing & content
Higher overall composite score (79/100) correlates with better nuance, coherence, and style in long-form content
Image understanding & OCR
Supports vision input - can analyze screenshots, diagrams, photos, and scanned documents directly
GPT-5.4 Mini and GPT-5.4 Nano are extremely close in overall performance (only 0 points apart). Your best choice depends entirely on which specific strengths matter most for your use case.
By Use Case
Best for Quality
GPT-5.4 Mini
Marginally better benchmark scores; both are excellent
Best for Cost
GPT-5.4 Nano
72% lower pricing; better value at scale
Best for Reliability
GPT-5.4 Mini
Higher uptime and faster response speeds
Best for Prototyping
GPT-5.4 Mini
Stronger community support and better developer experience
Best for Production
GPT-5.4 Mini
Wider enterprise adoption and proven at scale
by OpenAI
- Choose for Quality - Marginally better benchmark scores; both are excellent
- Choose for Reliability - Higher uptime and faster response speeds
- Choose for Prototyping - Stronger community support and better developer experience
- Choose for Production - Wider enterprise adoption and proven at scale
| Capability | GPT-5.4 Mini | GPT-5.4 Nano |
|---|---|---|
| Vision (Image Input) | ||
| Function Calling | ||
| Streaming | ||
| JSON Mode | ||
| Reasoning | ||
| Web Search | ||
| Image Output |
GPT-5.4 Mini
OpenAI
GPT-5.4 Nano
OpenAI
GPT-5.4 Nano saves you $4.89/month
That's 72% cheaper than GPT-5.4 Mini at 1,000 tokens/request and 100 requests/day.
Assumes 60% input / 40% output token ratio per request. Actual costs may vary based on your usage pattern.
| Parameter | GPT-5.4 Mini | GPT-5.4 Nano |
|---|---|---|
| Context Window | 400K | 400K |
| Max Output Tokens | 128,000 | 128,000 |
| Open Source | No | No |
| Created | Mar 17, 2026 | Mar 17, 2026 |
The ranking difference likely reflects real-world performance metrics beyond the raw score - Nano's 3.6x lower output pricing ($1.25/M vs $4.5/M) makes it more attractive for high-volume coding tasks while maintaining the same 400K context window and 128K max output. Since both models share identical capabilities including Vision, Function Calling, and Reasoning, the ranking algorithm appears to weight cost-efficiency heavily in the coding category where output tokens can quickly accumulate.
At 50M output tokens monthly, GPT-5.4 Nano costs $62.50 versus Mini's $225 - a $162.50 monthly savings (72% reduction). The input token pricing difference is less dramatic ($0.20/M vs $0.75/M), but for typical coding workflows with high output-to-input ratios, Nano delivers the same 61/100 performance score at nearly 1/4 the total cost.
OpenAI's pricing strategy suggests Mini may be positioned for lower-volume enterprise users who value predictable costs over per-token efficiency - the $0.75/M input price (versus Nano's $0.20/M) could reflect bundled SLAs or priority routing not captured in the raw capability list. With both models supporting identical 400K context windows and full feature parity (Vision, Web Search, JSON Mode), the price differential appears purely commercial rather than technical.
Migration is a no-brainer for most use cases - you get the same 61/100 performance, identical 128K max output capacity, and full feature compatibility while cutting costs by 72% on output tokens. The only hesitation would be if Mini includes undocumented benefits like lower latency or higher rate limits, but with both models ranking in the top 14 of 326 coding models, Nano's #12 position suggests it may actually perform marginally better in production.
At ranks #12 and #14 out of 326 models, both GPT-5.4 variants sit in the top 4.3% of coding models while scoring 61/100 - suggesting the coding category has extremely strong competition at the top. Their 400K context windows and comprehensive multimodal capabilities (text+image+file inputs) are likely enterprise-grade features that many higher-scoring models lack, making the 61/100 score potentially misleading for teams needing Vision or Web Search functionality.