Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

GPT-4o vs gpt-oss-20b

gpt-oss-20b costs 66.7x less per output token than GPT-4o ($0.15 vs $10.00 per million). Updated October 21, 2026; 14 benchmarks have a result for both.

GPT-4oOpenAI
Coding
No data
Overall
No data
Output $/M
$10.00
2
gpt-oss-20bOpenAI
Coding
No data
Overall
38.5
Output $/M
$0.15
11
vs boards won of 14 shared, 1 tied

GPT-4o or gpt-oss-20b: which to pick

Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding.

Pick GPT-4o for work measured by LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run) or Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run), where it leads.

Shared results
14
GPT-4o only
13
gpt-oss-20b only
48
Like-for-like categories
7 of 9

Only benchmarks that tested both models count toward a pick; a result only one model has is shown but not compared.

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.

At a glance

Coding index
GPT-4o not benchmarked, gpt-oss-20b not benchmarked.
Widest category
Math, 83.3 points apart on average over 2 shared benchmarks.
Widest single gap
AIME 2025 (Artificial Analysis run): GPT-4o 6.0% against gpt-oss-20b 89.3%, 83.3 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
Output price
GPT-4o $10.00 against gpt-oss-20b $0.15 per million output tokens, 66.7x apart.
Context window
GPT-4o takes 128K tokens, gpt-oss-20b 131K.

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.

Boards won, where both have a result
CategoryGPT-4oBarsgpt-oss-20bTies
Coding02
Agentic work01
Reasoning02
Math02
Knowledge001 tie
Web design02
General22
All shared boards2111 tie
CodingLike-for-likeSix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index02
Coding benchmarks for GPT-4o and gpt-oss-20b
BenchmarkGPT-4ogpt-oss-20bLeader
SWE-bench Verified38.8%Not measuredOnly GPT-4o measured
SWE-bench Lite38.0%Not measuredOnly GPT-4o measured
SWE-bench (full test set)18.8%Not measuredOnly GPT-4o measured
SWE-bench Multimodal30.4%Not measuredOnly GPT-4o measured
LiveCodeBench (Vals AI)Not measured80.4%Only gpt-oss-20b measured
LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run)30.9%77.7%gpt-oss-20b
SciCodeNot measured38.9%Only gpt-oss-20b measured
Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run)8.3%10.6%gpt-oss-20b
Terminal-BenchNot measured3.4%Only gpt-oss-20b measured
WeirdMLNot measured40.9%Only gpt-oss-20b measured
ALE-BenchNot measured566.0Only gpt-oss-20b measured
LMArena Text: codingNot measured1307Only gpt-oss-20b measured
LMArena Text: software and ITNot measured1311Only gpt-oss-20b measured
SciCode1.5%Not measuredOnly GPT-4o measured
Neither model has a result on the other 25 boards here
IntelligenceDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index2 boards, none shared
Intelligence benchmarks for GPT-4o and gpt-oss-20b
BenchmarkGPT-4ogpt-oss-20bLeader
AA Intelligence IndexNot measured10.0Only gpt-oss-20b measured
Epoch Capabilities IndexNot measured137.7Only gpt-oss-20b measured
Agentic workLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
Agentic work benchmarks for GPT-4o and gpt-oss-20b
BenchmarkGPT-4ogpt-oss-20bLeader
τ²-Bench Telecom25.1%60.2%gpt-oss-20b
GDPval9.9%Not measuredOnly GPT-4o measured
BrowseComp-PlusNot measured50.6%Only gpt-oss-20b measured
Neither model has a result on the other 38 boards here
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index02
Reasoning benchmarks for GPT-4o and gpt-oss-20b
BenchmarkGPT-4ogpt-oss-20bLeader
GPQA DiamondNot measured68.9%Only gpt-oss-20b measured
GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run)54.3%68.8%gpt-oss-20b
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)2.4%11.0%gpt-oss-20b
GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run)Not measured60.8%Only gpt-oss-20b measured
ARC-AGI4.5%Not measuredOnly GPT-4o measured
ARC-AGI-20.0%Not measuredOnly GPT-4o measured
LMArena Text: hard promptsNot measured1274Only gpt-oss-20b measured
LMArena Text: expertNot measured1258Only gpt-oss-20b measured
LMArena Text: hard prompts in EnglishNot measured1292Only gpt-oss-20b measured
Kagi LLM BenchmarkNot measured53.2%Only gpt-oss-20b measured
Neither model has a result on the other 12 boards here
MathLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index02
Math benchmarks for GPT-4o and gpt-oss-20b
BenchmarkGPT-4ogpt-oss-20bLeader
AIMENot measured86.0%Only gpt-oss-20b measured
MATH 500 (Vals AI)Not measured94.2%Only gpt-oss-20b measured
MGSM (Vals AI)Not measured89.0%Only gpt-oss-20b measured
AA Math Index6.089.3gpt-oss-20b
AIME 2025 (Artificial Analysis run)6.0%89.3%gpt-oss-20b
OTIS Mock AIMENot measured65.3%Only gpt-oss-20b measured
LMArena Text: mathNot measured1317Only gpt-oss-20b measured
LMArena Text: mathematical workNot measured1305Only gpt-oss-20b measured
Neither model has a result on the other 5 boards here
KnowledgeLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index00
Knowledge benchmarks for GPT-4o and gpt-oss-20b
BenchmarkGPT-4ogpt-oss-20bLeader
MMLU ProNot measured71.6%Only gpt-oss-20b measured
LegalBench (Vals AI)Not measured70.8%Only gpt-oss-20b measured
CaseLaw (Vals AI)Not measured43.8%Only gpt-oss-20b measured
CorpFin (Vals AI)Not measured53.1%Only gpt-oss-20b measured
TaxEval (Vals AI)Not measured63.7%Only gpt-oss-20b measured
MedQA (Vals AI)Not measured82.9%Only gpt-oss-20b measured
MMLU Pro (Artificial Analysis run)74.8%74.8%Tie
MMLU88.1%Not measuredOnly GPT-4o measured
LMArena Text: scienceNot measured1296Only gpt-oss-20b measured
LMArena Text: medicine and healthcareNot measured1310Only gpt-oss-20b measured
LMArena Text: legal and governmentNot measured1280Only gpt-oss-20b measured
LMArena Text: business and financeNot measured1284Only gpt-oss-20b measured
Neither model has a result on the other 6 boards here
Web designLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index02
Web design benchmarks for GPT-4o and gpt-oss-20b
BenchmarkGPT-4ogpt-oss-20bLeader
Design Arena: websites831852gpt-oss-20b
Design Arena: UI components885Not measuredOnly GPT-4o measured
Design Arena: game dev906Not measuredOnly GPT-4o measured
Design Arena: data viz858933gpt-oss-20b
Design Arena: 3D869Not measuredOnly GPT-4o measured
Design Arena: all code categories861Not measuredOnly GPT-4o measured
Neither model has a result on the other 3 boards here
GeneralLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index22
General benchmarks for GPT-4o and gpt-oss-20b
BenchmarkGPT-4ogpt-oss-20bLeader
IFBench34.3%65.1%gpt-oss-20b
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR)49.3%34.7%GPT-4o
DTBench64.5%68.0%gpt-oss-20b
LMCA16.6%14.5%GPT-4o
LMArena TextNot measured1288Only gpt-oss-20b measured
LMArena Text: instruction followingNot measured1236Only gpt-oss-20b measured
LMArena Text: creative writingNot measured1201Only gpt-oss-20b measured
LMArena Text: EnglishNot measured1303Only gpt-oss-20b measured
LMArena Text: non-EnglishNot measured1269Only gpt-oss-20b measured
LMArena Text: ChineseNot measured1315Only gpt-oss-20b measured
LMArena Text: GermanNot measured1255Only gpt-oss-20b measured
LMArena Text: JapaneseNot measured1244Only gpt-oss-20b measured
LMArena Text: KoreanNot measured1236Only gpt-oss-20b measured
LMArena Text: SpanishNot measured1267Only gpt-oss-20b measured
LMArena Text: RussianNot measured1278Only gpt-oss-20b measured
LMArena Text: PolishNot measured1252Only gpt-oss-20b measured
LMArena Text: multi-turnNot measured1268Only gpt-oss-20b measured
LMArena Text: longer queriesNot measured1250Only gpt-oss-20b measured
LMArena Text: writing and languageNot measured1238Only gpt-oss-20b measured
LMArena Text: entertainment and mediaNot measured1216Only gpt-oss-20b measured
Neither model has a result on the other 26 boards here
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
Image generation benchmarks for GPT-4o and gpt-oss-20b
BenchmarkGPT-4ogpt-oss-20bLeader
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$0.0075Fits in one request
gpt-oss-20b$0.0001Fits in one request

gpt-oss-20b costs less

Repository review

50K input + 3K output tokens

GPT-4o$0.155Fits in one request
gpt-oss-20b$0.0019Fits in one request

gpt-oss-20b costs less

Agent loop

200K input + 10K output tokens

GPT-4o$0.600Exceeds the context window
gpt-oss-20b$0.0075Exceeds the context window

gpt-oss-20b 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.

Specifications of GPT-4o and gpt-oss-20b
SpecificationOpenAI GPT-4oOpenAI gpt-oss-20b
MakerOpenAIOpenAI
WeightsNo public weights listedOpen weights
ReleasedMay 13, 2024August 5, 2025
Context window128K131K
Input $/Mtok$2.50$0.03
Output $/Mtok$10.00$0.15
Coding indexNot benchmarkedNot benchmarked
Independent measurements behind it00
Cost per solved taskNot computableNot computable
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is GPT-4o better than gpt-oss-20b for coding?

Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Pick GPT-4o for work measured by LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run) or Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run), where it leads.

Which is cheaper, GPT-4o or gpt-oss-20b?

GPT-4o costs $2.50 per million input tokens and $10.00 per million output tokens; gpt-oss-20b costs $0.03 and $0.15. Cost per solved task is known for neither of them.

Which has the bigger context window, GPT-4o or gpt-oss-20b?

gpt-oss-20b, with 131K tokens against 128K.

How many benchmarks is the GPT-4o vs gpt-oss-20b comparison based on?

14 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 21, 2026. GPT-4o's coding index rests on 0 independent benchmarks and gpt-oss-20b's on 0. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.

Compare next