| Signal | GPT-5.4 Nano | Delta | Grok 4.20 |
|---|---|---|---|
Capabilities | 100 | -- | |
Benchmarks | 90 | +4 | |
Pricing | 99 | +1 | |
Context window size | 80 | -10 | |
Recency | 100 | -- | |
Output Capacity | 85 | +65 | |
| Overall Result | 3 wins | of 6 | 1 wins |
Score History
78.8
current score
Grok 4.20
right now
88.3
current score
OpenAI
xAI
GPT-5.4 Nano saves you $167.50/month
That's $2010.00/year compared to Grok 4.20 at your current usage level of 100K calls/month.
| Metric | GPT-5.4 Nano | Grok 4.20 | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall Score | 79 | 88 | Grok 4.20 |
| Rank | #45 | #14 | Grok 4.20 |
| Quality Rank | #45 | #14 | Grok 4.20 |
| Adoption Rank | #45 | #14 | Grok 4.20 |
| Parameters | -- | -- | -- |
| Context Window | 400K | 2000K | Grok 4.20 |
| Pricing | $0.20/$1.25/M | $1.25/$2.50/M | -- |
| Signal Scores | |||
| Capabilities | 100 | 100 | GPT-5.4 Nano |
| Benchmarks | 90 | 86 | GPT-5.4 Nano |
| Pricing | 99 | 98 | GPT-5.4 Nano |
| Context window size | 80 | 90 | Grok 4.20 |
| Recency | 100 | 100 | GPT-5.4 Nano |
| Output Capacity | 85 | 20 | GPT-5.4 Nano |
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 #45), placing it in the top 85% of all 290 models tracked.
Scores 88/100 (rank #14), placing it in the top 96% of all 290 models tracked.
Grok 4.20 has a 10-point advantage, which typically translates to noticeably better performance on complex reasoning, code generation, and multi-step tasks.
GPT-5.4 Nano offers 61% better value per quality point. At 1M tokens/day, you'd spend $21.75/month with GPT-5.4 Nano vs $56.25/month with Grok 4.20 - a $34.50 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 (2000K 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 (88/100) 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
Grok 4.20 has a moderate advantage with a 9.5-point lead in composite score. It wins on more signal dimensions, but GPT-5.4 Nano has specific strengths that could make it the better choice for certain workflows.
Best for Quality
GPT-5.4 Nano
Marginally better benchmark scores; both are excellent
Best for Cost
GPT-5.4 Nano
61% lower pricing; better value at scale
Best for Reliability
GPT-5.4 Nano
Higher uptime and faster response speeds
Best for Prototyping
GPT-5.4 Nano
Stronger community support and better developer experience
Best for Production
GPT-5.4 Nano
Wider enterprise adoption and proven at scale
by OpenAI
| Capability | GPT-5.4 Nano | Grok 4.20 |
|---|---|---|
| Vision (Image Input) | ||
| Function Calling | ||
| Streaming | ||
| JSON Mode | ||
| Reasoning | ||
| Web Search | ||
| Image Output |
OpenAI
xAI
GPT-5.4 Nano saves you $3.39/month
That's 65% cheaper than Grok 4.20 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 Nano | Grok 4.20 |
|---|---|---|
| Context Window | 400K | 2M |
| Max Output Tokens | 128,000 | -- |
| Open Source | No | No |
| Created | Mar 17, 2026 | Mar 31, 2026 |
The 13-point score gap (74 vs 61) and rank difference (#3 vs #13) suggest Grok 4.20 delivers significantly better code generation quality and accuracy. At $6/M output tokens versus $1.25/M, you're paying for Grok's superior performance in complex coding tasks where accuracy matters more than cost.
GPT-5.4 Nano becomes compelling for high-volume, lower-stakes tasks like code documentation or simple refactoring where its 61/100 score is sufficient. At $0.20/M input tokens versus Grok's $2/M, processing a 10M token codebase costs $2 versus $20 - a critical difference for pre-revenue startups running thousands of analysis passes.
While GPT-5.4 Nano's 400K tokens handle most single-file operations and moderate codebases, Grok's 5x larger window (2M tokens) enables processing entire monorepos or multiple related services simultaneously. This matters for enterprise refactoring projects where maintaining cross-file context directly impacts code quality - potentially justifying the 4.8x cost premium.
GPT-5.4 Nano's explicit 128K output limit actually provides more predictability for code generation pipelines than Grok's null specification. However, Grok's #3 ranking suggests its output quality compensates for any potential limitations - earning 13 more points (74 vs 61) likely through better algorithmic understanding rather than output volume.
Migration makes sense primarily for teams where code generation accuracy directly impacts revenue or security - Grok's 74/100 score versus 61/100 represents a 21% performance improvement. However, at 10x the input cost ($2/M vs $0.20/M) and 4.8x output cost, teams processing over 50M tokens monthly would see costs increase by $90,000+ annually, making migration viable only for mission-critical applications.