GPT-4o
Proprietary CommercialDeveloped by OpenAI · Omni-Modal Transformer · Modalities: Text, Vision, Audio · Released 2024-05-13
What are the token costs and operational benchmarks for GPT-4o?
Verified Capability Benchmarks
Composite Intelligence: 61.8/100Architectural & Production Profile
Multimodal enterprise baseline combining native text, vision, and audio processing for real-time applications.
General enterprise assistants, multimodal customer support, and structured JSON output pipelines.
- Architecture
- Omni-Modal Transformer
- Modalities
- Text, Vision, Audio
- Max Output Tokens
- 16,384 tokens
- Blended Rate (3:1)
- $4.375 / 1M
Verified Cloud Inference Endpoints Hosting GPT-4o
Compare latency, streaming speed, and token pricing across cloud API providers.
| Inference Provider | Role | Input / 1M | Output / 1M | Avg TTFT | Throughput |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| OpenAI Platform API → | Primary Host | $2.50 | $10.00 | 280ms | 100 tok/s |
Interactive Monthly Token Economics & ROI Forecaster
Model production workloads across prompt, completion, and cached context tokens, or switch models on the fly.
Estimated Monthly Spend
$2.50/1M in · $10.00/1M out
Prompt Cache: $1.250/1M read · $2.50/1M write
$2.00/1M in · $10.00/1M out
Prompt Cache: $0.100/1M read · $0.50/1M write
Head-to-Head Comparisons Involving GPT-4o (36)
GPT-4o vs Claude 3.5 Sonnet
GPT-4o is 16.7% cheaper for input tokens ($2.50 vs. $3.00 per 1M tokens) and $10.00 vs. $15.00 for output tokens (1.2x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, GPT-4o delivers lower response latency at 280ms TTFT (30ms faster than Claude 3.5 Sonnet) with 100 vs. 80 tok/s throughput. Claude 3.5 Sonnet leads coding evaluations at 49.0% SWE-bench Verified vs. 48.0% for GPT-4o and 59.4% vs. 53.6% on GPQA Diamond.
GPT-4o vs Gemini 4 Argon
Gemini 4 Argon is 20.0% cheaper for input tokens ($2.00 vs. $2.50 per 1M tokens) and $10.00 vs. $10.00 for output tokens (1.2x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, GPT-4o delivers lower response latency at 280ms TTFT (570ms faster than Gemini 4 Argon) with 100 vs. 115 tok/s throughput. Gemini 4 Argon leads coding evaluations at 84.5% SWE-bench Verified vs. 48.0% for GPT-4o and 93.8% vs. 53.6% on GPQA Diamond.
GPT-4o vs Claude 4.5 Sonnet
GPT-4o is 16.7% cheaper for input tokens ($2.50 vs. $3.00 per 1M tokens) and $10.00 vs. $15.00 for output tokens (1.2x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, GPT-4o delivers lower response latency at 280ms TTFT (100ms faster than Claude 4.5 Sonnet) with 100 vs. 84 tok/s throughput. Claude 4.5 Sonnet leads coding evaluations at 75.8% SWE-bench Verified vs. 48.0% for GPT-4o and 84.2% vs. 53.6% on GPQA Diamond.
GPT-4o vs Claude Opus 5.5
GPT-4o is 37.5% cheaper for input tokens ($2.50 vs. $4.00 per 1M tokens) and $10.00 vs. $20.00 for output tokens (1.6x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, GPT-4o delivers lower response latency at 280ms TTFT (400ms faster than Claude Opus 5.5) with 100 vs. 95 tok/s throughput. Claude Opus 5.5 leads coding evaluations at 89.9% SWE-bench Verified vs. 48.0% for GPT-4o and 93.2% vs. 53.6% on GPQA Diamond.
GPT-4o vs Gemini 3.8 Flash
Gemini 3.8 Flash is 90.0% cheaper for input tokens ($0.25 vs. $2.50 per 1M tokens) and $1.50 vs. $10.00 for output tokens (10.0x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Gemini 3.8 Flash delivers lower response latency at 105ms TTFT (175ms faster than GPT-4o) with 210 vs. 100 tok/s throughput. Gemini 3.8 Flash leads coding evaluations at 68.5% SWE-bench Verified vs. 48.0% for GPT-4o and 79.2% vs. 53.6% on GPQA Diamond.
GPT-4o vs GPT-5
GPT-4o and GPT-5 share identical input pricing at $2.50 per 1M tokens ($10.00 vs. $10.00 output). In terms of operational performance, GPT-4o delivers lower response latency at 280ms TTFT (60ms faster than GPT-5) with 100 vs. 105 tok/s throughput. GPT-5 leads coding evaluations at 74.9% SWE-bench Verified vs. 48.0% for GPT-4o and 85.4% vs. 53.6% on GPQA Diamond.
GPT-4o vs GPT-6 Astra
GPT-4o is 75.0% cheaper for input tokens ($2.50 vs. $10.00 per 1M tokens) and $10.00 vs. $50.00 for output tokens (4.0x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, GPT-4o delivers lower response latency at 280ms TTFT (460ms faster than GPT-6 Astra) with 100 vs. 74 tok/s throughput. GPT-6 Astra leads coding evaluations at 75.7% SWE-bench Verified vs. 48.0% for GPT-4o and 96.0% vs. 53.6% on GPQA Diamond.
GPT-4o vs DeepSeek V4 Pro
DeepSeek V4 Pro is 47.2% cheaper for input tokens ($1.32 vs. $2.50 per 1M tokens) and $3.96 vs. $10.00 for output tokens (1.9x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, GPT-4o delivers lower response latency at 280ms TTFT (240ms faster than DeepSeek V4 Pro) with 100 vs. 78 tok/s throughput. DeepSeek V4 Pro leads coding evaluations at 80.6% SWE-bench Verified vs. 48.0% for GPT-4o and 90.1% vs. 53.6% on GPQA Diamond.
GPT-4o vs DeepSeek R1
DeepSeek R1 is 78.0% cheaper for input tokens ($0.55 vs. $2.50 per 1M tokens) and $2.19 vs. $10.00 for output tokens (4.5x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, GPT-4o delivers lower response latency at 280ms TTFT (1170ms faster than DeepSeek R1) with 100 vs. 58 tok/s throughput. DeepSeek R1 leads coding evaluations at 49.2% SWE-bench Verified vs. 48.0% for GPT-4o and 71.5% vs. 53.6% on GPQA Diamond.
GPT-4o vs DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision (Exp)
DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision (Exp) is 91.2% cheaper for input tokens ($0.22 vs. $2.50 per 1M tokens) and $0.65 vs. $10.00 for output tokens (11.4x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, GPT-4o delivers lower response latency at 280ms TTFT (30ms faster than DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision (Exp)) with 100 vs. 165 tok/s throughput. DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision (Exp) leads coding evaluations at 77.4% SWE-bench Verified vs. 48.0% for GPT-4o and 91.3% vs. 53.6% on GPQA Diamond.
GPT-4o vs o1
GPT-4o cuts input token costs by 83.3% compared to o1 ($2.50 vs. $15.00 per 1M input tokens; $10.00 vs. $60.00/1M output). For autonomous software engineering, o1 leads on SWE-bench Verified (48.9% vs. 48.0%), while o1 edges ahead on GPQA Diamond scientific reasoning (78.0%). In real-time API production, GPT-4o achieves a faster 280ms TTFT latency (100.0 tokens/sec).
GPT-4o vs OpenAI o3
OpenAI o3 is 20.0% cheaper for input tokens ($2.00 vs. $2.50 per 1M tokens) and $8.00 vs. $10.00 for output tokens (1.2x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, GPT-4o delivers lower response latency at 280ms TTFT (870ms faster than OpenAI o3) with 100 vs. 82 tok/s throughput. OpenAI o3 leads coding evaluations at 71.7% SWE-bench Verified vs. 48.0% for GPT-4o and 87.7% vs. 53.6% on GPQA Diamond.
GPT-4o vs Claude 4 Opus
GPT-4o is 83.3% cheaper for input tokens ($2.50 vs. $15.00 per 1M tokens) and $10.00 vs. $75.00 for output tokens (6.0x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, GPT-4o delivers lower response latency at 280ms TTFT (640ms faster than Claude 4 Opus) with 100 vs. 46 tok/s throughput. Claude 4 Opus leads coding evaluations at 77.2% SWE-bench Verified vs. 48.0% for GPT-4o and 87.1% vs. 53.6% on GPQA Diamond.
GPT-4o vs Claude 3.7 Sonnet
GPT-4o is 16.7% cheaper for input tokens ($2.50 vs. $3.00 per 1M tokens) and $10.00 vs. $15.00 for output tokens (1.2x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, GPT-4o delivers lower response latency at 280ms TTFT (260ms faster than Claude 3.7 Sonnet) with 100 vs. 72 tok/s throughput. Claude 3.7 Sonnet leads coding evaluations at 70.3% SWE-bench Verified vs. 48.0% for GPT-4o and 78.5% vs. 53.6% on GPQA Diamond.
GPT-4o vs Gemini 3.1 Pro
Gemini 3.1 Pro is 50.0% cheaper for input tokens ($1.25 vs. $2.50 per 1M tokens) and $10.00 vs. $10.00 for output tokens (2.0x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, GPT-4o delivers lower response latency at 280ms TTFT (140ms faster than Gemini 3.1 Pro) with 100 vs. 98 tok/s throughput. Gemini 3.1 Pro leads coding evaluations at 71.8% SWE-bench Verified vs. 48.0% for GPT-4o and 82.4% vs. 53.6% on GPQA Diamond.
GPT-4o vs Grok 4
GPT-4o and Grok 4 share identical input pricing at $2.50 per 1M tokens ($10.00 vs. $12.50 output). In terms of operational performance, GPT-4o delivers lower response latency at 280ms TTFT (200ms faster than Grok 4) with 100 vs. 95 tok/s throughput. Grok 4 leads coding evaluations at 73.2% SWE-bench Verified vs. 48.0% for GPT-4o and 86.2% vs. 53.6% on GPQA Diamond.
GPT-4o vs Llama 4 Maverick
Llama 4 Maverick is 92.0% cheaper for input tokens ($0.20 vs. $2.50 per 1M tokens) and $0.60 vs. $10.00 for output tokens (12.5x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Llama 4 Maverick delivers lower response latency at 135ms TTFT (145ms faster than GPT-4o) with 175 vs. 100 tok/s throughput. Llama 4 Maverick leads coding evaluations at 62.4% SWE-bench Verified vs. 48.0% for GPT-4o and 73.8% vs. 53.6% on GPQA Diamond.
GPT-4o vs Qwen 3.8 Flash Next
Qwen 3.8 Flash Next is 93.6% cheaper for input tokens ($0.16 vs. $2.50 per 1M tokens) and $0.47 vs. $10.00 for output tokens (15.6x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Both models demonstrate comparable response latency around 280ms TTFT (100 vs. 185 tok/s). Qwen 3.8 Flash Next leads coding evaluations at 81.0% SWE-bench Verified vs. 48.0% for GPT-4o and 91.7% vs. 53.6% on GPQA Diamond.
GPT-4o vs Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite is 97.0% cheaper for input tokens ($0.07 vs. $2.50 per 1M tokens) and $0.30 vs. $10.00 for output tokens (33.3x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite delivers lower response latency at 78ms TTFT (202ms faster than GPT-4o) with 265 vs. 100 tok/s throughput. Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite leads coding evaluations at 55.4% SWE-bench Verified vs. 48.0% for GPT-4o and 68.4% vs. 53.6% on GPQA Diamond.
GPT-4o vs OpenAI o4-mini
OpenAI o4-mini is 56.0% cheaper for input tokens ($1.10 vs. $2.50 per 1M tokens) and $4.40 vs. $10.00 for output tokens (2.3x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, GPT-4o delivers lower response latency at 280ms TTFT (400ms faster than OpenAI o4-mini) with 100 vs. 125 tok/s throughput. OpenAI o4-mini leads coding evaluations at 68.1% SWE-bench Verified vs. 48.0% for GPT-4o and 81.4% vs. 53.6% on GPQA Diamond.
GPT-4o vs DeepSeek V3
DeepSeek V3 is 94.4% cheaper for input tokens ($0.14 vs. $2.50 per 1M tokens) and $0.28 vs. $10.00 for output tokens (17.9x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, GPT-4o delivers lower response latency at 280ms TTFT (130ms faster than DeepSeek V3) with 100 vs. 78 tok/s throughput. GPT-4o leads coding evaluations at 48.0% SWE-bench Verified vs. 42.0% for DeepSeek V3 and 53.6% vs. 59.1% on GPQA Diamond.
GPT-4o vs Gemma 4 31B IT
Gemma 4 31B IT is 95.2% cheaper for input tokens ($0.12 vs. $2.50 per 1M tokens) and $0.36 vs. $10.00 for output tokens (20.8x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Gemma 4 31B IT delivers lower response latency at 115ms TTFT (165ms faster than GPT-4o) with 155 vs. 100 tok/s throughput. Gemma 4 31B IT leads coding evaluations at 59.2% SWE-bench Verified vs. 48.0% for GPT-4o and 71.2% vs. 53.6% on GPQA Diamond.
GPT-4o vs OpenAI o3-mini
OpenAI o3-mini is 56.0% cheaper for input tokens ($1.10 vs. $2.50 per 1M tokens) and $4.40 vs. $10.00 for output tokens (2.3x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, GPT-4o delivers lower response latency at 280ms TTFT (670ms faster than OpenAI o3-mini) with 100 vs. 98 tok/s throughput. OpenAI o3-mini leads coding evaluations at 49.3% SWE-bench Verified vs. 48.0% for GPT-4o and 79.7% vs. 53.6% on GPQA Diamond.
GPT-4o vs Claude 3.5 Haiku
Claude 3.5 Haiku is 68.0% cheaper for input tokens ($0.80 vs. $2.50 per 1M tokens) and $4.00 vs. $10.00 for output tokens (3.1x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Claude 3.5 Haiku delivers lower response latency at 190ms TTFT (90ms faster than GPT-4o) with 130 vs. 100 tok/s throughput. GPT-4o leads coding evaluations at 48.0% SWE-bench Verified vs. 40.6% for Claude 3.5 Haiku and 53.6% vs. 41.6% on GPQA Diamond.
GPT-4o vs Gemini 2.0 Flash
Gemini 2.0 Flash is 96.0% cheaper for input tokens ($0.10 vs. $2.50 per 1M tokens) and $0.40 vs. $10.00 for output tokens (25.0x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Both models demonstrate comparable response latency around 280ms TTFT (185 vs. 100 tok/s). Gemini 2.0 Flash leads coding evaluations at 51.8% SWE-bench Verified vs. 48.0% for GPT-4o and 63.6% vs. 53.6% on GPQA Diamond.
GPT-4o vs Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash is 88.0% cheaper for input tokens ($0.30 vs. $2.50 per 1M tokens) and $2.50 vs. $10.00 for output tokens (8.3x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Gemini 2.5 Flash delivers lower response latency at 110ms TTFT (170ms faster than GPT-4o) with 180 vs. 100 tok/s throughput. Gemini 2.5 Flash leads coding evaluations at 58.0% SWE-bench Verified vs. 48.0% for GPT-4o and 70.5% vs. 53.6% on GPQA Diamond.
GPT-4o vs Gemini 2.5 Pro
Gemini 2.5 Pro is 50.0% cheaper for input tokens ($1.25 vs. $2.50 per 1M tokens) and $10.00 vs. $10.00 for output tokens (2.0x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, GPT-4o delivers lower response latency at 280ms TTFT (420ms faster than Gemini 2.5 Pro) with 100 vs. 80 tok/s throughput. Gemini 2.5 Pro leads coding evaluations at 63.8% SWE-bench Verified vs. 48.0% for GPT-4o and 74.0% vs. 53.6% on GPQA Diamond.
GPT-4o vs GLM-5.3-Flash
GLM-5.3-Flash is 95.2% cheaper for input tokens ($0.12 vs. $2.50 per 1M tokens) and $0.40 vs. $10.00 for output tokens (20.8x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, GLM-5.3-Flash delivers lower response latency at 90ms TTFT (190ms faster than GPT-4o) with 175 vs. 100 tok/s throughput. GLM-5.3-Flash leads coding evaluations at 52.8% SWE-bench Verified vs. 48.0% for GPT-4o and 63.5% vs. 53.6% on GPQA Diamond.
GPT-4o vs GLM-5.3
GLM-5.3 is 86.0% cheaper for input tokens ($0.35 vs. $2.50 per 1M tokens) and $1.00 vs. $10.00 for output tokens (7.1x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, GLM-5.3 delivers lower response latency at 160ms TTFT (120ms faster than GPT-4o) with 120 vs. 100 tok/s throughput. GLM-5.3 leads coding evaluations at 56.0% SWE-bench Verified vs. 48.0% for GPT-4o and 67.0% vs. 53.6% on GPQA Diamond.
GPT-4o vs GPT-4o Mini
GPT-4o Mini is 94.0% cheaper for input tokens ($0.15 vs. $2.50 per 1M tokens) and $0.60 vs. $10.00 for output tokens (16.7x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, GPT-4o Mini delivers lower response latency at 220ms TTFT (60ms faster than GPT-4o) with 140 vs. 100 tok/s throughput. GPT-4o leads coding evaluations at 48.0% SWE-bench Verified vs. 41.0% for GPT-4o Mini and 53.6% vs. 40.2% on GPQA Diamond.
GPT-4o vs GPT-6.1 Sol
GPT-6.1 Sol is 20.0% cheaper for input tokens ($2.00 vs. $2.50 per 1M tokens) and $10.00 vs. $10.00 for output tokens (1.2x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, GPT-4o delivers lower response latency at 280ms TTFT (240ms faster than GPT-6.1 Sol) with 100 vs. 135 tok/s throughput. GPT-6.1 Sol leads coding evaluations at 86.4% SWE-bench Verified vs. 48.0% for GPT-4o and 92.4% vs. 53.6% on GPQA Diamond.
GPT-4o vs Grok 3
GPT-4o is 16.7% cheaper for input tokens ($2.50 vs. $3.00 per 1M tokens) and $10.00 vs. $15.00 for output tokens (1.2x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, GPT-4o delivers lower response latency at 280ms TTFT (340ms faster than Grok 3) with 100 vs. 88 tok/s throughput. Grok 3 leads coding evaluations at 65.8% SWE-bench Verified vs. 48.0% for GPT-4o and 84.6% vs. 53.6% on GPQA Diamond.
GPT-4o vs Grok 3 Mini
Grok 3 Mini is 88.0% cheaper for input tokens ($0.30 vs. $2.50 per 1M tokens) and $1.20 vs. $10.00 for output tokens (8.3x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Grok 3 Mini delivers lower response latency at 150ms TTFT (130ms faster than GPT-4o) with 160 vs. 100 tok/s throughput. Grok 3 Mini leads coding evaluations at 54.0% SWE-bench Verified vs. 48.0% for GPT-4o and 68.0% vs. 53.6% on GPQA Diamond.
GPT-4o vs Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
Llama 3.3 70B Instruct is 95.2% cheaper for input tokens ($0.12 vs. $2.50 per 1M tokens) and $0.30 vs. $10.00 for output tokens (20.8x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Llama 3.3 70B Instruct delivers lower response latency at 145ms TTFT (135ms faster than GPT-4o) with 165 vs. 100 tok/s throughput. GPT-4o leads coding evaluations at 48.0% SWE-bench Verified vs. 42.5% for Llama 3.3 70B Instruct and 53.6% vs. 55.6% on GPQA Diamond.
GPT-4o vs Mistral Large 2 (2411)
Mistral Large 2 (2411) is 20.0% cheaper for input tokens ($2.00 vs. $2.50 per 1M tokens) and $6.00 vs. $10.00 for output tokens (1.2x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, GPT-4o delivers lower response latency at 280ms TTFT (100ms faster than Mistral Large 2 (2411)) with 100 vs. 75 tok/s throughput. GPT-4o leads coding evaluations at 48.0% SWE-bench Verified vs. 45.2% for Mistral Large 2 (2411) and 53.6% vs. 54.2% on GPQA Diamond.
GPT-4o vs Qwen 3.8 27B
Qwen 3.8 27B is 92.0% cheaper for input tokens ($0.20 vs. $2.50 per 1M tokens) and $0.60 vs. $10.00 for output tokens (12.5x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Qwen 3.8 27B delivers lower response latency at 120ms TTFT (160ms faster than GPT-4o) with 140 vs. 100 tok/s throughput. Qwen 3.8 27B leads coding evaluations at 58.4% SWE-bench Verified vs. 48.0% for GPT-4o and 68.0% vs. 53.6% on GPQA Diamond.
Frequently Asked Questions & Query Fan-Out
How much does GPT-4o cost per 1M tokens including prompt caching?
GPT-4o costs $2.50 per million input tokens and $10.00 per million output tokens. Cached input reads cost $1.250 per 1M tokens, reducing repeated context costs by 50%.
What are GPT-4o's coding and reasoning benchmark scores?
GPT-4o achieves 48% on SWE-bench Verified, 90.2% on HumanEval coding, 53.6% on GPQA Diamond graduate-level science, 75.9% on MMLU-Pro, and 76.6% on MATH-500, earning an overall Inference Value Ratio (IVR) of 47.6/100.
What is the context window, TTFT latency, and token throughput of GPT-4o?
GPT-4o supports a 131,072 token context window (16,384 max output tokens) and operates at 280ms average Time to First Token (TTFT) with 100 tokens/sec output streaming throughput.
What are the primary production use cases for GPT-4o?
General enterprise assistants, multimodal customer support, and structured JSON output pipelines.