Compare/GPT-5.4 (xhigh) vs GPT-5.2 (xhigh)

GPT-5.4 (xhigh)vsGPT-5.2 (xhigh)

Side-by-side comparison of pricing, 12 benchmarks, and generation speed.

OpenAI

GPT-5.4 (xhigh)

Input
$2.5/M
Output
$15/M
Speed
131 tok/s
TTFT
144.08s
OpenAI

GPT-5.2 (xhigh)

Input
$1.75/M
Output
$14/M
Speed
78 tok/s
TTFT
142.93s

Winner by Category

Cheaper
GPT-5.2 (xhigh)
Faster (tok/s)
GPT-5.4 (xhigh)
Lower Latency
GPT-5.2 (xhigh)
Benchmarks (2-0)
GPT-5.4 (xhigh)

Pricing Comparison

MetricGPT-5.4 (xhigh)GPT-5.2 (xhigh)
Input ($/M tokens)$2.5$1.75
Output ($/M tokens)$15$14
Cost for 1M input + 100K output tokens:
GPT-5.4 (xhigh)$4.00
GPT-5.2 (xhigh)$3.15

Speed Comparison

Output Speed (tokens/s) — higher is better
GPT-5.4 (xhigh)
131 tok/s
GPT-5.2 (xhigh)
78 tok/s
Time to First Token (seconds) — lower is better
GPT-5.4 (xhigh)
144.08s
GPT-5.2 (xhigh)
142.93s

Editorial Analysis

Verdict. GPT-5.4 (xhigh) wins the overall benchmark matchup 2–0 across 2 overlapping categories, but raw benchmark score is only one input to the decision.

Pricing. Both models sit in the premium / mid-tier bracket for output-token pricing. At 1.1× the per-million-token cost, GPT-5.2 (xhigh) is meaningfully cheaper if your traffic is output-heavy (long completions, document generation, agent loops). GPT-5.2 (xhigh) makes more sense when output volume is low and absolute reasoning quality justifies the premium.

Strengths. GPT-5.4 (xhigh) is strongest on Coding Index (71.1), Intelligence Index (53.1). GPT-5.2 (xhigh) leads on Intelligence Index (43.3).

Speed. On throughput, GPT-5.4 (xhigh) generates tokens at 131 tok/s versus 78 tok/s — about 40% faster. On time-to-first-token, GPT-5.2 (xhigh) responds in 142930ms vs 144080ms, which matters most for chat-style UIs.

Provider. Both models come from the same vendor, so the choice comes down to which tier or generation fits your workload — not vendor lock-in.

Workload cost. Workload scenarios (per million requests at 30M input + 15M output tokens): GPT-5.4 (xhigh) costs $300.00 ($3600/year); GPT-5.2 (xhigh) costs $262.50 ($3150/year). At a smaller 5M-input/2M-output scale (single-developer tool or prototype): GPT-5.4 (xhigh) ≈ $42.50/run, GPT-5.2 (xhigh) ≈ $36.75/run. At agent/realtime scale (200M input / 100M output per million requests): GPT-5.4 (xhigh) ≈ $2000/run, GPT-5.2 (xhigh) ≈ $1750/run. GPT-5.2 (xhigh) becomes more attractive at higher volume — the absolute per-token pricing difference compounds when you ship at scale.

Recommendation. Both models have legitimate use cases — the right answer depends on whether you are optimizing for benchmark ceiling, latency, or unit cost. Start with the cheaper / faster model, evaluate against your specific task, and only switch if the upgrade shows a meaningful lift.

Head-to-head deltas

  • On throughput, GPT-5.4 (xhigh) is 1.67× faster (131 tok/s vs 78 tok/s). For streaming chat or real-time agents this alone often flips the recommendation.

Benchmark Comparison

Data from Artificial Analysis API — 12 benchmarks

Intelligence Index
53.143.3
Coding Index
71.1
Math Index
GPQA Diamond
MMLU-Pro
LiveCodeBench
AIME 2025
MATH-500
Humanity's Last Exam
SciCode
IFBench
TerminalBench
GPT-5.4 (xhigh)2 wins
0 winsGPT-5.2 (xhigh)

Frequently Asked Questions

Which is cheaper, GPT-5.4 (xhigh) or GPT-5.2 (xhigh)?

GPT-5.2 (xhigh) is cheaper overall. Its blended price (3:1 input/output ratio) is $4.81/M tokens vs $5.63/M for GPT-5.4 (xhigh).

Which model performs better on benchmarks?

GPT-5.4 (xhigh) wins 2 out of 12 benchmarks compared to 0 for GPT-5.2 (xhigh). See the detailed benchmark chart above for per-category results.

Which is faster for real-time applications?

GPT-5.4 (xhigh) generates tokens faster at 131 tok/s vs 78 tok/s. However, GPT-5.2 (xhigh) has lower time-to-first-token (142.93s vs 144.08s).

When should I use GPT-5.4 (xhigh) vs GPT-5.2 (xhigh)?

Choose based on your priorities: GPT-5.2 (xhigh) for lower cost, GPT-5.4 (xhigh) for stronger benchmark performance, and GPT-5.4 (xhigh) for faster generation. For latency-sensitive apps, check the TTFT comparison above.