GPT-4o-mini vs Sonar Pro
Updated October 21, 2026. 5 benchmarks have a result for both. Coding is ranked on the Vibe Coding Index; every other board is shown as published.
Decision reading
Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding.
GPT-4o-mini has the edge where output tokens cost 25.0x less, and where what matters is LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run) or AA Intelligence Index, where it leads.
- Shared results
- 5
- GPT-4o-mini only
- 22
- Sonar Pro only
- 0
- Like-for-like categories
- 4 of 9
Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results only one model has describe coverage, not superiority.
Which one for your work
Each card is decided by one number both models carry. Where only one has it, the card says so and makes no call.
Coding
Vibe Coding Index, six public coding benchmarks
No call
Neither has a coding score yet.
One side not measured
Intelligence
AA Intelligence Index
Sonar Pro
Sonar Pro leads, 7.6 against 6.7.
Same board, both measured
Reasoning
GPQA Diamond
No call
Only GPT-4o-mini has a GPQA Diamond result, 44.2%.
Directional only
Math
AIME
No call
Only GPT-4o-mini has a AIME result, 11.5%.
Directional only
Knowledge
MMLU Pro
No call
Only GPT-4o-mini has a MMLU Pro result, 62.7%.
Directional only
Long documents
Listed context window
Sonar Pro
Sonar Pro takes 200K tokens against 128K.
Listed by OpenRouter
Everyday cost
1K input + 500 output tokens
GPT-4o-mini
GPT-4o-mini $0.0004, Sonar Pro $0.011 per turn.
List prices
At a glance
- Coding index
- GPT-4o-mini not benchmarked, Sonar Pro not benchmarked.
- Widest category
- Knowledge, 10.7 points apart on average over 1 shared benchmark.
- Widest single gap
- GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run): GPT-4o-mini 42.6% against Sonar Pro 57.8%, 15.2 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
- Output price
- GPT-4o-mini $0.60 against Sonar Pro $15.00 per million output tokens, 25.0x apart.
- Context window
- GPT-4o-mini takes 128K tokens, Sonar Pro 200K.
Benchmark by benchmark
First the score: boards each model leads, per category, where both have a result. Then every board, a category to a fold; bars are each result on a 0 to 100 scale, so compare the two in a row, not one row with another.
| Category | GPT-4o-mini | Bars | Sonar Pro | Ties |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | 0 | 1 | ||
| Intelligence | 0 | 1 | ||
| Reasoning | 0 | 2 | ||
| Knowledge | 0 | 1 | ||
| All shared boards | 0 | 5 |
CodingLike-for-likeSix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index01
| Benchmark | GPT-4o-mini | Sonar Pro | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Coding Index | 11.4 | Not measured | Only GPT-4o-mini measured |
| LiveCodeBench (Vals AI) | 26.4% | Not measured | Only GPT-4o-mini measured |
| LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run) | 23.4% | 27.5% | Sonar Pro |
| Neither model has a result on the other 35 boards here | |||
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
| Benchmark | GPT-4o-mini | Sonar Pro | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Intelligence Index | 6.7 | 7.6 | Sonar Pro |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 126.5 | Not measured | Only GPT-4o-mini measured |
Agentic workNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | GPT-4o-mini | Sonar Pro | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Neither model has a result on 39 boards here | |||
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index02
| Benchmark | GPT-4o-mini | Sonar Pro | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 44.2% | Not measured | Only GPT-4o-mini measured |
| MMMU Pro (Vals AI) | 56.6% | Not measured | Only GPT-4o-mini measured |
| GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run) | 42.6% | 57.8% | Sonar Pro |
| Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run) | 4.2% | 6.6% | Sonar Pro |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 0.0% | Not measured | Only GPT-4o-mini measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 16 boards here | |||
MathDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index6 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | GPT-4o-mini | Sonar Pro | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AIME | 11.5% | Not measured | Only GPT-4o-mini measured |
| MATH 500 (Vals AI) | 72.6% | Not measured | Only GPT-4o-mini measured |
| MGSM (Vals AI) | 86.2% | Not measured | Only GPT-4o-mini measured |
| AA Math Index | 14.7 | Not measured | Only GPT-4o-mini measured |
| AIME 2025 (Artificial Analysis run) | 14.7% | Not measured | Only GPT-4o-mini measured |
| GSM8K | 91.3% | Not measured | Only GPT-4o-mini measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 7 boards here | |||
KnowledgeLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
| Benchmark | GPT-4o-mini | Sonar Pro | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMLU Pro | 62.7% | Not measured | Only GPT-4o-mini measured |
| CorpFin (Vals AI) | 45.5% | Not measured | Only GPT-4o-mini measured |
| TaxEval (Vals AI) | 60.5% | Not measured | Only GPT-4o-mini measured |
| MortgageTax (Vals AI) | 54.5% | Not measured | Only GPT-4o-mini measured |
| MedQA (Vals AI) | 72.4% | Not measured | Only GPT-4o-mini measured |
| MMLU Pro (Artificial Analysis run) | 64.8% | 75.5% | Sonar Pro |
| MMLU | 81.8% | Not measured | Only GPT-4o-mini measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 10 boards here | |||
Web designNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | GPT-4o-mini | Sonar Pro | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Neither model has a result on 9 boards here | |||
GeneralDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index4 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | GPT-4o-mini | Sonar Pro | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| IFBench | 31.0% | Not measured | Only GPT-4o-mini measured |
| DTBench | 54.4% | Not measured | Only GPT-4o-mini measured |
| LMCA | 10.4% | Not measured | Only GPT-4o-mini measured |
| PIQA | 88.7% | Not measured | Only GPT-4o-mini measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 42 boards here | |||
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | GPT-4o-mini | Sonar Pro | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Neither model has a result on 5 boards here | |||
What each workload costs
Three fixed token mixes at each model's listed price, so per-token rates become a bill.
Chat turn
1K input + 500 output tokens
GPT-4o-mini costs less
Repository review
50K input + 3K output tokens
GPT-4o-mini costs less
Agent loop
200K input + 10K output tokens
GPT-4o-mini costs less
Listed OpenRouter rates, without cache or batch discounts. A workload that does not fit a model's context window would need splitting.
Specification differences
The leading value in a row is marked; a row with a missing value names no leader. Our two rows are marked in red.
| Specification | OpenAI GPT-4o-mini | Perplexity Sonar Pro |
|---|---|---|
| Maker | OpenAI | Perplexity |
| Weights | No public weights listed | No public weights listed |
| Released | July 18, 2024 | March 7, 2025 |
| Context window | 128K | 200K |
| Input $/Mtok | $0.15 | $3.00 |
| Output $/Mtok | $0.60 | $15.00 |
| Coding index | Not benchmarked | Not benchmarked |
| Independent measurements behind it | 0 | 0 |
| Cost per solved task | Not computable | Not computable |
| Source | OpenRouter listing | OpenRouter listing |
Questions
Is GPT-4o-mini better than Sonar Pro for coding?
Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. GPT-4o-mini has the edge where output tokens cost 25.0x less, and where what matters is LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run) or AA Intelligence Index, where it leads.
Which is cheaper, GPT-4o-mini or Sonar Pro?
GPT-4o-mini costs $0.15 per million input tokens and $0.60 per million output tokens; Sonar Pro costs $3.00 and $15.00. Cost per solved task is known for neither of them.
Which has the bigger context window, GPT-4o-mini or Sonar Pro?
Sonar Pro, with 200K tokens against 128K.
How many benchmarks is the GPT-4o-mini vs Sonar Pro comparison based on?
5 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 21, 2026. GPT-4o-mini's coding index rests on 0 independent benchmarks and Sonar Pro's on 0. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.