GPT-5.4vsComposer 2.5
GPT-5.4 | Composer 2.5 | |
|---|---|---|
| API pricingUSD per 1M tokens · lower wins | ||
Input priceWhat you pay for everything you send the model — your question, plus any documents or earlier conversation you include with it. | $2.50 | — |
Output priceWhat you pay for the text the model writes back. It is normally the dearer half: producing an answer costs more than reading one. | $15.00 | — |
Cached input priceA reduced rate for text you send over and over. If every request starts with the same instructions or the same document, the provider keeps a copy ready and charges less to read it again. | $0.25 | — |
Cheapest inputLowest input rate across third-party providers, excluding the lab itself. The cheapest endpoint may run a quantised build or a shorter context — see "Available from" on the model page. | $2.50Azure | — |
Cheapest outputLowest output rate across third-party providers, excluding the lab itself. May come from a different provider than the cheapest input. | $15.00Azure | — |
| Benchmarks | ||
Next.js EvalsNext.js coding — Vercel's open eval of how well AI coding agents build and migrate real Next.js apps — measured as the share of tasks the agent completes successfully. Higher is better. | 77% | 81% |
Terminal-Bench 2.0Agentic terminal coding — Can the AI work in a command-line terminal — running commands and finishing technical setup tasks the way a developer would? (Version 2.0 of the test.) Higher is better. | 75.1% | 69.3% |
| BenchmarksPublished by one model only | ||
BullshitBench v2Nonsense detection — Given a confidently-worded but nonsensical prompt, does the AI spot that it makes no sense and push back — instead of playing along and inventing an answer? The score is how often it clearly called out the nonsense. Higher is better. | 48% | — |
SWE-Bench ProAgentic coding — Can the AI fix real bugs in real software? It's handed actual problems from open-source projects and has to write code that genuinely solves them. Higher is better. | — | 54% |
SWE-Bench MultilingualMultilingual coding — Like SWE-Bench, but the coding problems span many programming languages, not just one. Tests how broadly the AI can code. Higher is better. | — | 79.8% |
DeepSWE 1.0Agentic coding — Artificial Analysis' independent test of deep, agentic software-engineering work — the AI has to plan and carry out substantial coding tasks end to end. Higher is better. | — | 18% |
Terminal-Bench 2.1Agentic terminal coding — Can the AI work in a command-line terminal — running commands and finishing technical setup tasks the way a developer would? Higher is better. | — | 73% |
Expert-SWE (Internal)Software engineering — OpenAI's private set of expert-level software-engineering problems. Higher is better. | 68.5% | — |
ToolathlonGeneral tool use — Tests how well the AI uses everyday real-world tools and apps to get things done. Higher is better. | 54.6% | — |
BrowseCompWeb browsing — Can the AI browse the web and track down hard-to-find answers? Higher is better. | 82.7% | — |
CyberGymCybersecurity — Tests the AI on cybersecurity challenges — finding and exploiting software weaknesses inside a safe sandbox. Higher is better. | 79% | — |
Humanity's Last Exam · with toolsMultidisciplinary reasoning — Humanity's Last Exam — extremely hard expert questions across many subjects. “With tools” means the AI is allowed to search the web or run code while answering. Higher is better. | 52.1% | — |
ARC-AGI-2Abstract reasoning — Puzzle-style tests of abstract reasoning and pattern-finding — the kind of thing people find easy but AIs often struggle with. Higher is better. | 73.95% | — |
FrontierMath · Tier 1–3Advanced math — Very hard, research-level math problems. Tiers 1–3 are the (still extremely difficult) lower tiers. Higher is better. | 47.6% | — |
FrontierMath · Tier 4Advanced math — Very hard, research-level math problems. Tier 4 is the hardest — close to what professional research mathematicians tackle. Higher is better. | 27.1% | — |
GPQA DiamondScience — Graduate-level science questions in biology, physics, and chemistry — hard enough that subject-matter PhDs score around 65%. Higher is better. | 92.8% | — |
OSWorld-VerifiedAgentic computer use — Can the AI actually operate a computer — clicking, typing, and using real apps — to finish tasks on its own? Higher is better. | 75% | — |
GDPval (win/tie rate)Knowledge work — How often the AI's work matches or beats a human expert's on real knowledge-work tasks. Higher is better. | 83% | — |
| Overview | ||
| Company | OpenAI | SpaceXAI |
| Release date | Mar 5 2026 | May 18 2026 |
| Access | Proprietary | Proprietary |
Other comparisons
GPT-5.4vsClaude Fable 5.1Composer 2.5vsClaude Fable 5.1GPT-5.4vsGemini 3.8 FlashComposer 2.5vsGemini 3.8 FlashGPT-5.4vsMuse Spark 1.3Composer 2.5vsMuse Spark 1.3GPT-5.4vsDeepSeek-V4-Pro-0813Composer 2.5vsDeepSeek-V4-Pro-0813GPT-5.4vsMistral Medium 3.5Composer 2.5vsMistral Medium 3.5GPT-5.4vsKimi K3Composer 2.5vsKimi K3
Frequently asked questions
GPT-5.4 and Composer 2.5 are evenly matched across the 2 benchmarks they both report (Next.js Evals, Terminal-Bench 2.0). Only GPT-5.4 has a verified first-party API price: $2.50 per million input tokens and $15.00 per million output tokens. No pay-as-you-go API rate is tracked for Composer 2.5. GPT-5.4 shipped 74 days before Composer 2.5, so benchmark comparisons should account for the intervening progress.
Published specifications for these two models are limited — see each model page for the latest details.
On Next.js Evals, Composer 2.5 leads at 81% vs GPT-5.4 at 77%. On Terminal-Bench 2.0, GPT-5.4 leads at 75.1% vs Composer 2.5 at 69.3%.