OpenAI GPT-4o
Proprietary CommercialDeveloped by OpenAI · Released 2025-01-01
What are the token costs and operational benchmarks for OpenAI GPT-4o?
Architectural Overview
Frontier foundation model developed by OpenAI featuring Omni Multimodal Transformer architecture.
Optimal Production Use Cases
General multimodal assistant applications, consumer chat interfaces, and enterprise knowledge workers.
Interactive Monthly Token Economics & ROI Forecaster
Model your expected production workload across prompt (input) and completion (output) tokens.
Estimated Monthly Spend
$2.5/1M in · $10/1M out
$0.18/1M in · $0.72/1M out
Head-to-Head Comparisons Involving OpenAI GPT-4o
OpenAI 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 difference). In terms of operational performance, Claude 3.5 Haiku delivers faster response latency with 140ms TTFT (140ms faster than OpenAI GPT-4o). Claude 3.5 Haiku leads coding benchmarks at 40.6% SWE-bench vs. 38.8% for OpenAI GPT-4o.
OpenAI GPT-4o vs Claude 3.5 Sonnet
OpenAI 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 difference). In terms of operational performance, OpenAI GPT-4o delivers faster response latency with 280ms TTFT (40ms faster than Claude 3.5 Sonnet). Claude 3.5 Sonnet leads coding benchmarks at 63.7% SWE-bench vs. 38.8% for OpenAI GPT-4o.
OpenAI GPT-4o vs Claude 3.7 Sonnet
OpenAI 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 difference). In terms of operational performance, OpenAI GPT-4o delivers faster response latency with 280ms TTFT (370ms faster than Claude 3.7 Sonnet). Claude 3.7 Sonnet leads coding benchmarks at 70.3% SWE-bench vs. 38.8% for OpenAI GPT-4o.
OpenAI GPT-4o vs Claude Opus 5
OpenAI GPT-4o is 50.0% cheaper for input tokens ($2.50 vs. $5.00 per 1M tokens) and $10.00 vs. $25.00 for output tokens (2.0x cost difference). In terms of operational performance, OpenAI GPT-4o delivers faster response latency with 280ms TTFT (60ms faster than Claude Opus 5). Claude Opus 5 leads coding benchmarks at 82.4% SWE-bench vs. 38.8% for OpenAI GPT-4o.
OpenAI GPT-4o vs Codestral 25.01
Codestral 25.01 is 88.0% cheaper for input tokens ($0.30 vs. $2.50 per 1M tokens) and $0.90 vs. $10.00 for output tokens (8.3x cost difference). In terms of operational performance, Codestral 25.01 delivers faster response latency with 150ms TTFT (130ms faster than OpenAI GPT-4o). Codestral 25.01 leads coding benchmarks at 44.2% SWE-bench vs. 38.8% for OpenAI GPT-4o.
OpenAI GPT-4o vs Composer 2.5
Composer 2.5 is 28.0% cheaper for input tokens ($1.80 vs. $2.50 per 1M tokens) and $7.20 vs. $10.00 for output tokens (1.4x cost difference). In terms of operational performance, Composer 2.5 delivers faster response latency with 180ms TTFT (100ms faster than OpenAI GPT-4o). Composer 2.5 leads coding benchmarks at 74.6% SWE-bench vs. 38.8% for OpenAI GPT-4o.
OpenAI 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 difference). In terms of operational performance, OpenAI GPT-4o delivers faster response latency with 280ms TTFT (1520ms faster than DeepSeek-R1). DeepSeek-R1 leads coding benchmarks at 49.2% SWE-bench vs. 38.8% for OpenAI GPT-4o.
OpenAI 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 difference). In terms of operational performance, OpenAI GPT-4o delivers faster response latency with 280ms TTFT (60ms faster than DeepSeek-V3). DeepSeek-V3 leads coding benchmarks at 42.0% SWE-bench vs. 38.8% for OpenAI GPT-4o.
OpenAI GPT-4o vs DeepSeek-V4 Flash
DeepSeek-V4 Flash is 94.4% cheaper for input tokens ($0.14 vs. $2.50 per 1M tokens) and $0.56 vs. $10.00 for output tokens (17.9x cost difference). In terms of operational performance, DeepSeek-V4 Flash delivers faster response latency with 150ms TTFT (130ms faster than OpenAI GPT-4o). DeepSeek-V4 Flash leads coding benchmarks at 62.4% SWE-bench vs. 38.8% for OpenAI GPT-4o.
OpenAI GPT-4o vs Fable 5
Fable 5 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 difference). In terms of operational performance, Fable 5 delivers faster response latency with 240ms TTFT (40ms faster than OpenAI GPT-4o). Fable 5 leads coding benchmarks at 58.0% SWE-bench vs. 38.8% for OpenAI GPT-4o.
OpenAI 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 difference). In terms of operational performance, OpenAI GPT-4o delivers faster response latency with 280ms TTFT (100ms faster than Gemini 2.0 Flash). Gemini 2.0 Flash leads coding benchmarks at 48.0% SWE-bench vs. 38.8% for OpenAI GPT-4o.
OpenAI GPT-4o vs Gemini 3.7 Flash
Gemini 3.7 Flash is 96.8% cheaper for input tokens ($0.08 vs. $2.50 per 1M tokens) and $0.32 vs. $10.00 for output tokens (31.2x cost difference). In terms of operational performance, Gemini 3.7 Flash delivers faster response latency with 75ms TTFT (205ms faster than OpenAI GPT-4o). Gemini 3.7 Flash leads coding benchmarks at 68.2% SWE-bench vs. 38.8% for OpenAI GPT-4o.
OpenAI GPT-4o vs GLM 5.3 Flash
GLM 5.3 Flash is 94.0% cheaper for input tokens ($0.15 vs. $2.50 per 1M tokens) and $0.50 vs. $10.00 for output tokens (16.7x cost difference). In terms of operational performance, GLM 5.3 Flash delivers faster response latency with 130ms TTFT (150ms faster than OpenAI GPT-4o). GLM 5.3 Flash leads coding benchmarks at 54.2% SWE-bench vs. 38.8% for OpenAI GPT-4o.
OpenAI GPT-4o vs GPT-5.6 Luna
GPT-5.6 Luna is 92.8% cheaper for input tokens ($0.18 vs. $2.50 per 1M tokens) and $0.72 vs. $10.00 for output tokens (13.9x cost difference). In terms of operational performance, GPT-5.6 Luna delivers faster response latency with 90ms TTFT (190ms faster than OpenAI GPT-4o). GPT-5.6 Luna leads coding benchmarks at 48.5% SWE-bench vs. 38.8% for OpenAI GPT-4o.
OpenAI GPT-4o vs GPT-5.6 Sol
OpenAI GPT-4o is 68.8% cheaper for input tokens ($2.50 vs. $8.00 per 1M tokens) and $10.00 vs. $32.00 for output tokens (3.2x cost difference). In terms of operational performance, OpenAI GPT-4o delivers faster response latency with 280ms TTFT (140ms faster than GPT-5.6 Sol). GPT-5.6 Sol leads coding benchmarks at 79.5% SWE-bench vs. 38.8% for OpenAI GPT-4o.
OpenAI GPT-4o vs GPT-5.6 Terra
GPT-5.6 Terra is 40.0% cheaper for input tokens ($1.50 vs. $2.50 per 1M tokens) and $6.00 vs. $10.00 for output tokens (1.7x cost difference). In terms of operational performance, GPT-5.6 Terra delivers faster response latency with 210ms TTFT (70ms faster than OpenAI GPT-4o). GPT-5.6 Terra leads coding benchmarks at 65.4% SWE-bench vs. 38.8% for OpenAI GPT-4o.
OpenAI GPT-4o vs Grok 3
OpenAI 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 difference). In terms of operational performance, OpenAI GPT-4o delivers faster response latency with 280ms TTFT (570ms faster than Grok 3). Grok 3 leads coding benchmarks at 58.5% SWE-bench vs. 38.8% for OpenAI GPT-4o.
OpenAI GPT-4o vs xAI Grok 4.6
xAI Grok 4.6 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 difference). In terms of operational performance, xAI Grok 4.6 delivers faster response latency with 280ms TTFT (0ms faster than OpenAI GPT-4o). xAI Grok 4.6 leads coding benchmarks at 76.8% SWE-bench vs. 38.8% for OpenAI GPT-4o.
OpenAI GPT-4o vs Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
Llama 3.3 70B Instruct is 92.8% cheaper for input tokens ($0.18 vs. $2.50 per 1M tokens) and $0.40 vs. $10.00 for output tokens (13.9x cost difference). In terms of operational performance, OpenAI GPT-4o delivers faster response latency with 280ms TTFT (140ms faster than Llama 3.3 70B Instruct). Both models demonstrate comparable coding benchmark scores.
OpenAI GPT-4o vs Mistral Large 2
Mistral Large 2 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 difference). In terms of operational performance, OpenAI GPT-4o delivers faster response latency with 280ms TTFT (270ms faster than Mistral Large 2). Mistral Large 2 leads coding benchmarks at 39.0% SWE-bench vs. 38.8% for OpenAI GPT-4o.
OpenAI GPT-4o vs OpenAI o1
OpenAI GPT-4o is 83.3% cheaper for input tokens ($2.50 vs. $15.00 per 1M tokens) and $10.00 vs. $60.00 for output tokens (6.0x cost difference). In terms of operational performance, OpenAI GPT-4o delivers faster response latency with 280ms TTFT (570ms faster than OpenAI o1). OpenAI o1 leads coding benchmarks at 48.9% SWE-bench vs. 38.8% for OpenAI GPT-4o.
OpenAI GPT-4o vs o3-mini
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 difference). In terms of operational performance, OpenAI GPT-4o delivers faster response latency with 280ms TTFT (920ms faster than o3-mini). o3-mini leads coding benchmarks at 49.3% SWE-bench vs. 38.8% for OpenAI GPT-4o.
OpenAI GPT-4o vs Microsoft Phi-4 (14B)
Microsoft Phi-4 (14B) 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 difference). In terms of operational performance, Microsoft Phi-4 (14B) delivers faster response latency with 110ms TTFT (170ms faster than OpenAI GPT-4o). Microsoft Phi-4 (14B) leads coding benchmarks at 42.1% SWE-bench vs. 38.8% for OpenAI GPT-4o.
OpenAI GPT-4o vs Qwen 2.5 72B Instruct
Qwen 2.5 72B Instruct is 86.0% cheaper for input tokens ($0.35 vs. $2.50 per 1M tokens) and $0.40 vs. $10.00 for output tokens (7.1x cost difference). In terms of operational performance, OpenAI GPT-4o delivers faster response latency with 280ms TTFT (140ms faster than Qwen 2.5 72B Instruct). Qwen 2.5 72B Instruct leads coding benchmarks at 44.0% SWE-bench vs. 38.8% for OpenAI GPT-4o.
OpenAI GPT-4o vs Qwen 2.5 Max
Qwen 2.5 Max is 88.8% cheaper for input tokens ($0.28 vs. $2.50 per 1M tokens) and $0.84 vs. $10.00 for output tokens (8.9x cost difference). In terms of operational performance, OpenAI GPT-4o delivers faster response latency with 280ms TTFT (200ms faster than Qwen 2.5 Max). Qwen 2.5 Max leads coding benchmarks at 44.2% SWE-bench vs. 38.8% for OpenAI GPT-4o.
OpenAI GPT-4o vs Qwen 3.8 Flash Next
Qwen 3.8 Flash Next is 95.2% cheaper for input tokens ($0.12 vs. $2.50 per 1M tokens) and $0.48 vs. $10.00 for output tokens (20.8x cost difference). In terms of operational performance, Qwen 3.8 Flash Next delivers faster response latency with 120ms TTFT (160ms faster than OpenAI GPT-4o). Qwen 3.8 Flash Next leads coding benchmarks at 56.8% SWE-bench vs. 38.8% for OpenAI GPT-4o.
Frequently Asked Questions & Query Fan-Out
How much does OpenAI GPT-4o cost per 1M tokens?
OpenAI GPT-4o costs $2.50 per million prompt (input) tokens and $10.00 per million completion (output) tokens.
What is the context window for OpenAI GPT-4o?
OpenAI GPT-4o supports a maximum context window of 131,072 tokens, with a maximum single-generation output of 16,384 tokens.
What are the primary use cases for OpenAI GPT-4o?
General multimodal assistant applications, consumer chat interfaces, and enterprise knowledge workers.