GPT-4o vs o4 Mini High
Updated October 21, 2026. 1 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 has the edge where the benchmark that matters is GDPval, where it leads.
- Shared results
- 1
- GPT-4o only
- 25
- o4 Mini High only
- 1
- Like-for-like categories
- 1 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
Web design
Design Arena: websites
No call
Only GPT-4o has a Design Arena: websites result, 831.
Directional only
Long documents
Listed context window
o4 Mini High
o4 Mini High takes 200K tokens against 128K.
Listed by OpenRouter
Everyday cost
1K input + 500 output tokens
o4 Mini High
GPT-4o $0.0075, o4 Mini High $0.0033 per turn.
List prices
At a glance
- Coding index
- GPT-4o not benchmarked, o4 Mini High not benchmarked.
- Widest category
- Agentic work, 15.4 points apart on average over 1 shared benchmark.
- Widest single gap
- GDPval: GPT-4o 9.9% against o4 Mini High 25.3%, 15.4 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
- Output price
- GPT-4o $10.00 against o4 Mini High $4.40 per million output tokens, 2.3x apart.
- Context window
- GPT-4o takes 128K tokens, o4 Mini High 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 | Bars | o4 Mini High | Ties |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agentic work | 0 | 1 | ||
| All shared boards | 0 | 1 |
CodingDirectional onlySix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index7 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | GPT-4o | o4 Mini High | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench Verified | 38.8% | Not measured | Only GPT-4o measured |
| SWE-bench Lite | 38.0% | Not measured | Only GPT-4o measured |
| SWE-bench (full test set) | 18.8% | Not measured | Only GPT-4o measured |
| SWE-bench Multimodal | 30.4% | Not measured | Only GPT-4o measured |
| LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run) | 30.9% | Not measured | Only GPT-4o measured |
| Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run) | 8.3% | Not measured | Only GPT-4o measured |
| ALE-Bench | Not measured | 826.2 | Only o4 Mini High measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 31 boards here | |||
IntelligenceNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | GPT-4o | o4 Mini High | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Neither model has a result on 2 boards here | |||
Agentic workLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
| Benchmark | GPT-4o | o4 Mini High | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| τ²-Bench Telecom | 25.1% | Not measured | Only GPT-4o measured |
| GDPval | 9.9% | 25.3% | o4 Mini High |
| Neither model has a result on the other 37 boards here | |||
ReasoningDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index4 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | GPT-4o | o4 Mini High | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run) | 54.3% | Not measured | Only GPT-4o measured |
| Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run) | 2.4% | Not measured | Only GPT-4o measured |
| ARC-AGI | 4.5% | Not measured | Only GPT-4o measured |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 0.0% | Not measured | Only GPT-4o measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 17 boards here | |||
MathDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index2 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | GPT-4o | o4 Mini High | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Math Index | 6.0 | Not measured | Only GPT-4o measured |
| AIME 2025 (Artificial Analysis run) | 6.0% | Not measured | Only GPT-4o measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 11 boards here | |||
KnowledgeDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index2 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | GPT-4o | o4 Mini High | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMLU Pro (Artificial Analysis run) | 74.8% | Not measured | Only GPT-4o measured |
| MMLU | 88.1% | Not measured | Only GPT-4o measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 15 boards here | |||
Web designDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index6 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | GPT-4o | o4 Mini High | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Design Arena: websites | 831 | Not measured | Only GPT-4o measured |
| Design Arena: UI components | 885 | Not measured | Only GPT-4o measured |
| Design Arena: game dev | 906 | Not measured | Only GPT-4o measured |
| Design Arena: data viz | 858 | Not measured | Only GPT-4o measured |
| Design Arena: 3D | 869 | Not measured | Only GPT-4o measured |
| Design Arena: all code categories | 861 | Not measured | Only GPT-4o measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 3 boards here | |||
GeneralDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index4 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | GPT-4o | o4 Mini High | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| IFBench | 34.3% | Not measured | Only GPT-4o measured |
| Long context reasoning (AA-LCR) | 49.3% | Not measured | Only GPT-4o measured |
| DTBench | 64.5% | Not measured | Only GPT-4o measured |
| LMCA | 16.6% | Not measured | Only GPT-4o 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 | o4 Mini High | 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
o4 Mini High costs less
Repository review
50K input + 3K output tokens
o4 Mini High costs less
Agent loop
200K input + 10K output tokens
o4 Mini High 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 | OpenAI o4 Mini High |
|---|---|---|
| Maker | OpenAI | OpenAI |
| Weights | No public weights listed | No public weights listed |
| Released | May 13, 2024 | April 16, 2025 |
| Context window | 128K | 200K |
| Input $/Mtok | $2.50 | $1.10 |
| Output $/Mtok | $10.00 | $4.40 |
| 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 better than o4 Mini High for coding?
Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. GPT-4o has the edge where the benchmark that matters is GDPval, where it leads.
Which is cheaper, GPT-4o or o4 Mini High?
GPT-4o costs $2.50 per million input tokens and $10.00 per million output tokens; o4 Mini High costs $1.10 and $4.40. Cost per solved task is known for neither of them.
Which has the bigger context window, GPT-4o or o4 Mini High?
o4 Mini High, with 200K tokens against 128K.
How many benchmarks is the GPT-4o vs o4 Mini High comparison based on?
1 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 21, 2026. GPT-4o's coding index rests on 0 independent benchmarks and o4 Mini High's on 0. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.