GPT-4o Mini
Proprietary CommercialDeveloped by OpenAI · Edge-Optimized Omni Model · Modalities: Text, Vision · Released 2024-07-18
What are the token costs and operational benchmarks for GPT-4o Mini?
Verified Capability Benchmarks
Composite Intelligence: 53.4/100Architectural & Production Profile
Low-latency multimodal model optimized for high-volume customer queries, fine-tuning, and structured extraction.
High-volume classification, lightweight RAG chatbots, and structured JSON extraction.
- Architecture
- Edge-Optimized Omni Model
- Modalities
- Text, Vision
- Max Output Tokens
- 16,384 tokens
- Blended Rate (3:1)
- $0.262 / 1M
Verified Cloud Inference Endpoints Hosting GPT-4o Mini
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 | $0.15 | $0.60 | 220ms | 140 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
$0.15/1M in · $0.60/1M out
Prompt Cache: $0.075/1M read · $0.15/1M 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 Mini (36)
GPT-4o Mini vs Gemini 4 Argon
GPT-4o Mini is 92.5% cheaper for input tokens ($0.15 vs. $2.00 per 1M tokens) and $0.60 vs. $10.00 for output tokens (13.3x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, GPT-4o Mini delivers lower response latency at 220ms TTFT (630ms faster than Gemini 4 Argon) with 140 vs. 115 tok/s throughput. Gemini 4 Argon leads coding evaluations at 84.5% SWE-bench Verified vs. 41.0% for GPT-4o Mini and 93.8% vs. 40.2% on GPQA Diamond.
GPT-4o Mini vs Claude 4.5 Sonnet
GPT-4o Mini is 95.0% cheaper for input tokens ($0.15 vs. $3.00 per 1M tokens) and $0.60 vs. $15.00 for output tokens (20.0x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, GPT-4o Mini delivers lower response latency at 220ms TTFT (160ms faster than Claude 4.5 Sonnet) with 140 vs. 84 tok/s throughput. Claude 4.5 Sonnet leads coding evaluations at 75.8% SWE-bench Verified vs. 41.0% for GPT-4o Mini and 84.2% vs. 40.2% on GPQA Diamond.
GPT-4o Mini vs Claude Opus 5.5
GPT-4o Mini is 96.2% cheaper for input tokens ($0.15 vs. $4.00 per 1M tokens) and $0.60 vs. $20.00 for output tokens (26.7x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, GPT-4o Mini delivers lower response latency at 220ms TTFT (460ms faster than Claude Opus 5.5) with 140 vs. 95 tok/s throughput. Claude Opus 5.5 leads coding evaluations at 89.9% SWE-bench Verified vs. 41.0% for GPT-4o Mini and 93.2% vs. 40.2% on GPQA Diamond.
GPT-4o Mini vs Gemini 3.8 Flash
GPT-4o Mini is 40.0% cheaper for input tokens ($0.15 vs. $0.25 per 1M tokens) and $0.60 vs. $1.50 for output tokens (1.7x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Gemini 3.8 Flash delivers lower response latency at 105ms TTFT (115ms faster than GPT-4o Mini) with 210 vs. 140 tok/s throughput. Gemini 3.8 Flash leads coding evaluations at 68.5% SWE-bench Verified vs. 41.0% for GPT-4o Mini and 79.2% vs. 40.2% on GPQA Diamond.
GPT-4o Mini vs GPT-5
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 (120ms faster than GPT-5) with 140 vs. 105 tok/s throughput. GPT-5 leads coding evaluations at 74.9% SWE-bench Verified vs. 41.0% for GPT-4o Mini and 85.4% vs. 40.2% on GPQA Diamond.
GPT-4o Mini vs GPT-6 Astra
GPT-4o Mini is 98.5% cheaper for input tokens ($0.15 vs. $10.00 per 1M tokens) and $0.60 vs. $50.00 for output tokens (66.7x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, GPT-4o Mini delivers lower response latency at 220ms TTFT (520ms faster than GPT-6 Astra) with 140 vs. 74 tok/s throughput. GPT-6 Astra leads coding evaluations at 75.7% SWE-bench Verified vs. 41.0% for GPT-4o Mini and 96.0% vs. 40.2% on GPQA Diamond.
GPT-4o Mini vs DeepSeek V4 Pro
GPT-4o Mini is 88.6% cheaper for input tokens ($0.15 vs. $1.32 per 1M tokens) and $0.60 vs. $3.96 for output tokens (8.8x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, GPT-4o Mini delivers lower response latency at 220ms TTFT (300ms faster than DeepSeek V4 Pro) with 140 vs. 78 tok/s throughput. DeepSeek V4 Pro leads coding evaluations at 80.6% SWE-bench Verified vs. 41.0% for GPT-4o Mini and 90.1% vs. 40.2% on GPQA Diamond.
GPT-4o Mini vs DeepSeek R1
GPT-4o Mini is 72.7% cheaper for input tokens ($0.15 vs. $0.55 per 1M tokens) and $0.60 vs. $2.19 for output tokens (3.7x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, GPT-4o Mini delivers lower response latency at 220ms TTFT (1230ms faster than DeepSeek R1) with 140 vs. 58 tok/s throughput. DeepSeek R1 leads coding evaluations at 49.2% SWE-bench Verified vs. 41.0% for GPT-4o Mini and 71.5% vs. 40.2% on GPQA Diamond.
GPT-4o Mini vs DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision (Exp)
GPT-4o Mini is 31.8% cheaper for input tokens ($0.15 vs. $0.22 per 1M tokens) and $0.60 vs. $0.65 for output tokens (1.5x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, GPT-4o Mini delivers lower response latency at 220ms TTFT (90ms faster than DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision (Exp)) with 140 vs. 165 tok/s throughput. DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision (Exp) leads coding evaluations at 77.4% SWE-bench Verified vs. 41.0% for GPT-4o Mini and 91.3% vs. 40.2% on GPQA Diamond.
GPT-4o Mini vs OpenAI o3
GPT-4o Mini is 92.5% cheaper for input tokens ($0.15 vs. $2.00 per 1M tokens) and $0.60 vs. $8.00 for output tokens (13.3x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, GPT-4o Mini delivers lower response latency at 220ms TTFT (930ms faster than OpenAI o3) with 140 vs. 82 tok/s throughput. OpenAI o3 leads coding evaluations at 71.7% SWE-bench Verified vs. 41.0% for GPT-4o Mini and 87.7% vs. 40.2% on GPQA Diamond.
GPT-4o Mini vs Claude 4 Opus
GPT-4o Mini is 99.0% cheaper for input tokens ($0.15 vs. $15.00 per 1M tokens) and $0.60 vs. $75.00 for output tokens (100.0x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, GPT-4o Mini delivers lower response latency at 220ms TTFT (700ms faster than Claude 4 Opus) with 140 vs. 46 tok/s throughput. Claude 4 Opus leads coding evaluations at 77.2% SWE-bench Verified vs. 41.0% for GPT-4o Mini and 87.1% vs. 40.2% on GPQA Diamond.
GPT-4o Mini vs Claude 3.7 Sonnet
GPT-4o Mini is 95.0% cheaper for input tokens ($0.15 vs. $3.00 per 1M tokens) and $0.60 vs. $15.00 for output tokens (20.0x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, GPT-4o Mini delivers lower response latency at 220ms TTFT (320ms faster than Claude 3.7 Sonnet) with 140 vs. 72 tok/s throughput. Claude 3.7 Sonnet leads coding evaluations at 70.3% SWE-bench Verified vs. 41.0% for GPT-4o Mini and 78.5% vs. 40.2% on GPQA Diamond.
GPT-4o Mini vs Gemini 3.1 Pro
GPT-4o Mini is 88.0% cheaper for input tokens ($0.15 vs. $1.25 per 1M tokens) and $0.60 vs. $10.00 for output tokens (8.3x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, GPT-4o Mini delivers lower response latency at 220ms TTFT (200ms faster than Gemini 3.1 Pro) with 140 vs. 98 tok/s throughput. Gemini 3.1 Pro leads coding evaluations at 71.8% SWE-bench Verified vs. 41.0% for GPT-4o Mini and 82.4% vs. 40.2% on GPQA Diamond.
GPT-4o Mini vs Grok 4
GPT-4o Mini is 94.0% cheaper for input tokens ($0.15 vs. $2.50 per 1M tokens) and $0.60 vs. $12.50 for output tokens (16.7x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, GPT-4o Mini delivers lower response latency at 220ms TTFT (260ms faster than Grok 4) with 140 vs. 95 tok/s throughput. Grok 4 leads coding evaluations at 73.2% SWE-bench Verified vs. 41.0% for GPT-4o Mini and 86.2% vs. 40.2% on GPQA Diamond.
GPT-4o Mini vs Llama 4 Maverick
GPT-4o Mini is 25.0% cheaper for input tokens ($0.15 vs. $0.20 per 1M tokens) and $0.60 vs. $0.60 for output tokens (1.3x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Llama 4 Maverick delivers lower response latency at 135ms TTFT (85ms faster than GPT-4o Mini) with 175 vs. 140 tok/s throughput. Llama 4 Maverick leads coding evaluations at 62.4% SWE-bench Verified vs. 41.0% for GPT-4o Mini and 73.8% vs. 40.2% on GPQA Diamond.
GPT-4o Mini vs Qwen 3.8 Flash Next
GPT-4o Mini is 6.2% cheaper for input tokens ($0.15 vs. $0.16 per 1M tokens) and $0.60 vs. $0.47 for output tokens (1.1x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, GPT-4o Mini delivers lower response latency at 220ms TTFT (60ms faster than Qwen 3.8 Flash Next) with 140 vs. 185 tok/s throughput. Qwen 3.8 Flash Next leads coding evaluations at 81.0% SWE-bench Verified vs. 41.0% for GPT-4o Mini and 91.7% vs. 40.2% on GPQA Diamond.
GPT-4o Mini vs Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite is 50.0% cheaper for input tokens ($0.07 vs. $0.15 per 1M tokens) and $0.30 vs. $0.60 for output tokens (2.0x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite delivers lower response latency at 78ms TTFT (142ms faster than GPT-4o Mini) with 265 vs. 140 tok/s throughput. Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite leads coding evaluations at 55.4% SWE-bench Verified vs. 41.0% for GPT-4o Mini and 68.4% vs. 40.2% on GPQA Diamond.
GPT-4o Mini vs OpenAI o4-mini
GPT-4o Mini is 86.4% cheaper for input tokens ($0.15 vs. $1.10 per 1M tokens) and $0.60 vs. $4.40 for output tokens (7.3x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, GPT-4o Mini delivers lower response latency at 220ms TTFT (460ms faster than OpenAI o4-mini) with 140 vs. 125 tok/s throughput. OpenAI o4-mini leads coding evaluations at 68.1% SWE-bench Verified vs. 41.0% for GPT-4o Mini and 81.4% vs. 40.2% on GPQA Diamond.
GPT-4o Mini vs DeepSeek V3
DeepSeek V3 is 6.7% cheaper for input tokens ($0.14 vs. $0.15 per 1M tokens) and $0.28 vs. $0.60 for output tokens (1.1x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, GPT-4o Mini delivers lower response latency at 220ms TTFT (190ms faster than DeepSeek V3) with 140 vs. 78 tok/s throughput. DeepSeek V3 leads coding evaluations at 42.0% SWE-bench Verified vs. 41.0% for GPT-4o Mini and 59.1% vs. 40.2% on GPQA Diamond.
GPT-4o Mini vs Gemma 4 31B IT
Gemma 4 31B IT is 20.0% cheaper for input tokens ($0.12 vs. $0.15 per 1M tokens) and $0.36 vs. $0.60 for output tokens (1.2x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Gemma 4 31B IT delivers lower response latency at 115ms TTFT (105ms faster than GPT-4o Mini) with 155 vs. 140 tok/s throughput. Gemma 4 31B IT leads coding evaluations at 59.2% SWE-bench Verified vs. 41.0% for GPT-4o Mini and 71.2% vs. 40.2% on GPQA Diamond.
GPT-4o Mini vs OpenAI o3-mini
GPT-4o Mini is 86.4% cheaper for input tokens ($0.15 vs. $1.10 per 1M tokens) and $0.60 vs. $4.40 for output tokens (7.3x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, GPT-4o Mini delivers lower response latency at 220ms TTFT (730ms faster than OpenAI o3-mini) with 140 vs. 98 tok/s throughput. OpenAI o3-mini leads coding evaluations at 49.3% SWE-bench Verified vs. 41.0% for GPT-4o Mini and 79.7% vs. 40.2% on GPQA Diamond.
GPT-4o Mini vs Claude 3.5 Haiku
GPT-4o Mini is 81.2% cheaper for input tokens ($0.15 vs. $0.80 per 1M tokens) and $0.60 vs. $4.00 for output tokens (5.3x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Claude 3.5 Haiku delivers lower response latency at 190ms TTFT (30ms faster than GPT-4o Mini) with 130 vs. 140 tok/s throughput. GPT-4o Mini leads coding evaluations at 41.0% SWE-bench Verified vs. 40.6% for Claude 3.5 Haiku and 40.2% vs. 41.6% on GPQA Diamond.
GPT-4o Mini vs Claude 3.5 Sonnet
GPT-4o Mini is 95.0% cheaper for input tokens ($0.15 vs. $3.00 per 1M tokens) and $0.60 vs. $15.00 for output tokens (20.0x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, GPT-4o Mini delivers lower response latency at 220ms TTFT (90ms faster than Claude 3.5 Sonnet) with 140 vs. 80 tok/s throughput. Claude 3.5 Sonnet leads coding evaluations at 49.0% SWE-bench Verified vs. 41.0% for GPT-4o Mini and 59.4% vs. 40.2% on GPQA Diamond.
GPT-4o Mini vs Gemini 2.0 Flash
Gemini 2.0 Flash is 33.3% cheaper for input tokens ($0.10 vs. $0.15 per 1M tokens) and $0.40 vs. $0.60 for output tokens (1.5x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, GPT-4o Mini delivers lower response latency at 220ms TTFT (60ms faster than Gemini 2.0 Flash) with 140 vs. 185 tok/s throughput. Gemini 2.0 Flash leads coding evaluations at 51.8% SWE-bench Verified vs. 41.0% for GPT-4o Mini and 63.6% vs. 40.2% on GPQA Diamond.
GPT-4o Mini vs Gemini 2.5 Flash
GPT-4o Mini is 50.0% cheaper for input tokens ($0.15 vs. $0.30 per 1M tokens) and $0.60 vs. $2.50 for output tokens (2.0x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Gemini 2.5 Flash delivers lower response latency at 110ms TTFT (110ms faster than GPT-4o Mini) with 180 vs. 140 tok/s throughput. Gemini 2.5 Flash leads coding evaluations at 58.0% SWE-bench Verified vs. 41.0% for GPT-4o Mini and 70.5% vs. 40.2% on GPQA Diamond.
GPT-4o Mini vs Gemini 2.5 Pro
GPT-4o Mini is 88.0% cheaper for input tokens ($0.15 vs. $1.25 per 1M tokens) and $0.60 vs. $10.00 for output tokens (8.3x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, GPT-4o Mini delivers lower response latency at 220ms TTFT (480ms faster than Gemini 2.5 Pro) with 140 vs. 80 tok/s throughput. Gemini 2.5 Pro leads coding evaluations at 63.8% SWE-bench Verified vs. 41.0% for GPT-4o Mini and 74.0% vs. 40.2% on GPQA Diamond.
GPT-4o Mini vs GLM-5.3-Flash
GLM-5.3-Flash is 20.0% cheaper for input tokens ($0.12 vs. $0.15 per 1M tokens) and $0.40 vs. $0.60 for output tokens (1.2x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, GLM-5.3-Flash delivers lower response latency at 90ms TTFT (130ms faster than GPT-4o Mini) with 175 vs. 140 tok/s throughput. GLM-5.3-Flash leads coding evaluations at 52.8% SWE-bench Verified vs. 41.0% for GPT-4o Mini and 63.5% vs. 40.2% on GPQA Diamond.
GPT-4o Mini vs GLM-5.3
GPT-4o Mini is 57.1% cheaper for input tokens ($0.15 vs. $0.35 per 1M tokens) and $0.60 vs. $1.00 for output tokens (2.3x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, GLM-5.3 delivers lower response latency at 160ms TTFT (60ms faster than GPT-4o Mini) with 120 vs. 140 tok/s throughput. GLM-5.3 leads coding evaluations at 56.0% SWE-bench Verified vs. 41.0% for GPT-4o Mini and 67.0% vs. 40.2% on GPQA Diamond.
GPT-4o Mini vs GPT-6.1 Sol
GPT-4o Mini is 92.5% cheaper for input tokens ($0.15 vs. $2.00 per 1M tokens) and $0.60 vs. $10.00 for output tokens (13.3x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, GPT-4o Mini delivers lower response latency at 220ms TTFT (300ms faster than GPT-6.1 Sol) with 140 vs. 135 tok/s throughput. GPT-6.1 Sol leads coding evaluations at 86.4% SWE-bench Verified vs. 41.0% for GPT-4o Mini and 92.4% vs. 40.2% on GPQA Diamond.
GPT-4o Mini vs Grok 3
GPT-4o Mini is 95.0% cheaper for input tokens ($0.15 vs. $3.00 per 1M tokens) and $0.60 vs. $15.00 for output tokens (20.0x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, GPT-4o Mini delivers lower response latency at 220ms TTFT (400ms faster than Grok 3) with 140 vs. 88 tok/s throughput. Grok 3 leads coding evaluations at 65.8% SWE-bench Verified vs. 41.0% for GPT-4o Mini and 84.6% vs. 40.2% on GPQA Diamond.
GPT-4o Mini vs Grok 3 Mini
GPT-4o Mini is 50.0% cheaper for input tokens ($0.15 vs. $0.30 per 1M tokens) and $0.60 vs. $1.20 for output tokens (2.0x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Grok 3 Mini delivers lower response latency at 150ms TTFT (70ms faster than GPT-4o Mini) with 160 vs. 140 tok/s throughput. Grok 3 Mini leads coding evaluations at 54.0% SWE-bench Verified vs. 41.0% for GPT-4o Mini and 68.0% vs. 40.2% on GPQA Diamond.
GPT-4o Mini vs Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
Llama 3.3 70B Instruct is 20.0% cheaper for input tokens ($0.12 vs. $0.15 per 1M tokens) and $0.30 vs. $0.60 for output tokens (1.2x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Llama 3.3 70B Instruct delivers lower response latency at 145ms TTFT (75ms faster than GPT-4o Mini) with 165 vs. 140 tok/s throughput. Llama 3.3 70B Instruct leads coding evaluations at 42.5% SWE-bench Verified vs. 41.0% for GPT-4o Mini and 55.6% vs. 40.2% on GPQA Diamond.
GPT-4o Mini vs Mistral Large 2 (2411)
GPT-4o Mini is 92.5% cheaper for input tokens ($0.15 vs. $2.00 per 1M tokens) and $0.60 vs. $6.00 for output tokens (13.3x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, GPT-4o Mini delivers lower response latency at 220ms TTFT (160ms faster than Mistral Large 2 (2411)) with 140 vs. 75 tok/s throughput. Mistral Large 2 (2411) leads coding evaluations at 45.2% SWE-bench Verified vs. 41.0% for GPT-4o Mini and 54.2% vs. 40.2% on GPQA Diamond.
GPT-4o Mini vs o1
GPT-4o Mini is 99.0% cheaper for input tokens ($0.15 vs. $15.00 per 1M tokens) and $0.60 vs. $60.00 for output tokens (100.0x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, GPT-4o Mini delivers lower response latency at 220ms TTFT (2380ms faster than o1) with 140 vs. 48 tok/s throughput. o1 leads coding evaluations at 48.9% SWE-bench Verified vs. 41.0% for GPT-4o Mini and 78.0% vs. 40.2% on GPQA Diamond.
GPT-4o Mini vs Qwen 3.8 27B
GPT-4o Mini is 25.0% cheaper for input tokens ($0.15 vs. $0.20 per 1M tokens) and $0.60 vs. $0.60 for output tokens (1.3x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Qwen 3.8 27B delivers lower response latency at 120ms TTFT (100ms faster than GPT-4o Mini) with 140 vs. 140 tok/s throughput. Qwen 3.8 27B leads coding evaluations at 58.4% SWE-bench Verified vs. 41.0% for GPT-4o Mini and 68.0% vs. 40.2% on GPQA Diamond.
GPT-4o Mini vs GPT-4o
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.
Frequently Asked Questions & Query Fan-Out
How much does GPT-4o Mini cost per 1M tokens including prompt caching?
GPT-4o Mini costs $0.15 per million input tokens and $0.60 per million output tokens. Cached input reads cost $0.075 per 1M tokens, reducing repeated context costs by 50%.
What are GPT-4o Mini's coding and reasoning benchmark scores?
GPT-4o Mini achieves 41% on SWE-bench Verified, 87% on HumanEval coding, 40.2% on GPQA Diamond graduate-level science, 68% on MMLU-Pro, and 70.2% on MATH-500, earning an overall Inference Value Ratio (IVR) of 67.2/100.
What is the context window, TTFT latency, and token throughput of GPT-4o Mini?
GPT-4o Mini supports a 131,072 token context window (16,384 max output tokens) and operates at 220ms average Time to First Token (TTFT) with 140 tokens/sec output streaming throughput.
What are the primary production use cases for GPT-4o Mini?
High-volume classification, lightweight RAG chatbots, and structured JSON extraction.