Gemini 2.5 Pro vs GPT-5.4 for Math
GPT-5.4 is the winner for Math. In our testing and on external Epoch AI measures, GPT-5.4 outperforms Gemini 2.5 Pro on domain benchmarks (SWE-bench Verified 76.9 vs 57.6; AIME 2025 95.3 vs 84.2), and it scores higher on strategic_analysis (5 vs 4). Gemini 2.5 Pro is cheaper and stronger at tool_calling and creative_problem_solving, but the external math benchmarks and GPT-5.4’s larger output capacity make GPT-5.4 the definitive choice for raw math accuracy and long-form derivations.
Gemini 2.5 Pro
Benchmark Scores
External Benchmarks
Pricing
Input
$1.25/MTok
Output
$10.00/MTok
modelpicker.net
openai
GPT-5.4
Benchmark Scores
External Benchmarks
Pricing
Input
$2.50/MTok
Output
$15.00/MTok
modelpicker.net
Task Analysis
Mathematical tasks demand precise step-by-step reasoning, strategic problem decomposition, faithful arithmetic, correct structured output (for formulas/JSON), long-context support for lengthy proofs, and reliable tool calling when external calculators or symbolic engines are used. External benchmarks are the primary signal: on SWE-bench Verified (Epoch AI) GPT-5.4 scores 76.9 vs Gemini 2.5 Pro’s 57.6; on AIME 2025 (Epoch AI) GPT-5.4 scores 95.3 vs Gemini 2.5 Pro’s 84.2. Those external gaps explain the verdict. Our internal proxy metrics add nuance: GPT-5.4 leads on strategic_analysis (5 vs 4) and has higher safety_calibration (5 vs 1) and larger max_output_tokens (128,000 vs 65,536), favoring long derivations and contest-style solutions. Gemini 2.5 Pro leads on tool_calling (5 vs 4) and creative_problem_solving (5 vs 4), which helps multi-step, tool-assisted numeric workflows and heuristic explorations. Both tie on structured_output and faithfulness (5 each), so both can adhere to output schemas and avoid obvious hallucinations.
Practical Examples
- AIME / olympiad practice and contest-style proofs: GPT-5.4 is preferable — AIME 2025 95.3 vs 84.2 (Epoch AI) and strategic_analysis 5 vs 4 means higher correctness on tough, multi-step problems. 2) Long symbolic derivations or lecture-length proofs: GPT-5.4’s larger max_output_tokens (128k vs 65.5k) and high faithfulness reduce truncation risk. 3) Tool-assisted numeric pipelines (programmatic solvers, CAS, or calculator chains): Gemini 2.5 Pro excels — tool_calling 5 vs 4 — so it is better where accurate function selection and argument sequencing matter. 4) Cost-sensitive batch scoring or tutoring: Gemini 2.5 Pro is cheaper (input $1.25 / m-tok, output $10 / m-tok vs GPT-5.4 input $2.50 / m-tok, output $15 / m-tok) and still strong on structured_output (both 5), making it attractive for high-volume tutoring scenarios. 5) Safety-sensitive educational settings: GPT-5.4’s safety_calibration is 5 vs Gemini’s 1, which matters if you rely on the model to refuse or reframe problematic prompts.
Bottom Line
For Math, choose Gemini 2.5 Pro if you need cheaper throughput, superior tool calling for calculator/CAS integrations, or more creative, heuristic explorations. Choose GPT-5.4 if you prioritize raw math accuracy on external benchmarks (AIME 2025 95.3 vs 84.2; SWE-bench 76.9 vs 57.6, Epoch AI), stronger strategic reasoning, larger output windows for long derivations, and higher safety calibration.
How We Test
We test every model against our 12-benchmark suite covering tool calling, agentic planning, creative problem solving, safety calibration, and more. Each test is scored 1–5 by an LLM judge. Read our full methodology.
For math tasks, we supplement our benchmark suite with MATH/AIME scores from Epoch AI, an independent research organization.