OpenAI o4-mini
Proprietary CommercialDeveloped by OpenAI · Compact RL Reasoning Transformer · Modalities: Text, Vision · Released 2025-04-16
What are the token costs and operational benchmarks for OpenAI o4-mini?
Verified Capability Benchmarks
Composite Intelligence: 81.1/100Architectural & Production Profile
High-throughput multimodal reasoning model delivering frontier STEM and coding accuracy at a fraction of heavyweight reasoning API costs.
Automated PR review, high-volume agentic coding loops, SQL/data analysis, and visual document reasoning.
- Architecture
- Compact RL Reasoning Transformer
- Modalities
- Text, Vision
- Max Output Tokens
- 100,000 tokens
- Blended Rate (3:1)
- $1.925 / 1M
Verified Cloud Inference Endpoints Hosting OpenAI o4-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 | $1.10 | $4.40 | 680ms | 125 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
$1.10/1M in · $4.40/1M out
Prompt Cache: $0.275/1M read · $1.10/1M write
$2.00/1M in · $10.00/1M out
Prompt Cache: $0.100/1M read · $0.50/1M write
Head-to-Head Comparisons Involving OpenAI o4-mini (36)
OpenAI o4-mini vs Gemini 4 Argon
OpenAI o4-mini is 45.0% cheaper for input tokens ($1.10 vs. $2.00 per 1M tokens) and $4.40 vs. $10.00 for output tokens (1.8x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, OpenAI o4-mini delivers lower response latency at 680ms TTFT (170ms faster than Gemini 4 Argon) with 125 vs. 115 tok/s throughput. Gemini 4 Argon leads coding evaluations at 84.5% SWE-bench Verified vs. 68.1% for OpenAI o4-mini and 93.8% vs. 81.4% on GPQA Diamond.
OpenAI o4-mini vs Claude 4.5 Sonnet
OpenAI o4-mini is 63.3% cheaper for input tokens ($1.10 vs. $3.00 per 1M tokens) and $4.40 vs. $15.00 for output tokens (2.7x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Claude 4.5 Sonnet delivers lower response latency at 380ms TTFT (300ms faster than OpenAI o4-mini) with 84 vs. 125 tok/s throughput. Claude 4.5 Sonnet leads coding evaluations at 75.8% SWE-bench Verified vs. 68.1% for OpenAI o4-mini and 84.2% vs. 81.4% on GPQA Diamond.
OpenAI o4-mini vs Claude Opus 5.5
OpenAI o4-mini is 72.5% cheaper for input tokens ($1.10 vs. $4.00 per 1M tokens) and $4.40 vs. $20.00 for output tokens (3.6x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Both models demonstrate comparable response latency around 680ms TTFT (95 vs. 125 tok/s). Claude Opus 5.5 leads coding evaluations at 89.9% SWE-bench Verified vs. 68.1% for OpenAI o4-mini and 93.2% vs. 81.4% on GPQA Diamond.
OpenAI o4-mini vs Gemini 3.8 Flash
Gemini 3.8 Flash is 77.3% cheaper for input tokens ($0.25 vs. $1.10 per 1M tokens) and $1.50 vs. $4.40 for output tokens (4.4x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Gemini 3.8 Flash delivers lower response latency at 105ms TTFT (575ms faster than OpenAI o4-mini) with 210 vs. 125 tok/s throughput. Gemini 3.8 Flash leads coding evaluations at 68.5% SWE-bench Verified vs. 68.1% for OpenAI o4-mini and 79.2% vs. 81.4% on GPQA Diamond.
OpenAI o4-mini vs GPT-5
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-5 delivers lower response latency at 340ms TTFT (340ms faster than OpenAI o4-mini) with 105 vs. 125 tok/s throughput. GPT-5 leads coding evaluations at 74.9% SWE-bench Verified vs. 68.1% for OpenAI o4-mini and 85.4% vs. 81.4% on GPQA Diamond.
OpenAI o4-mini vs GPT-6 Astra
OpenAI o4-mini is 89.0% cheaper for input tokens ($1.10 vs. $10.00 per 1M tokens) and $4.40 vs. $50.00 for output tokens (9.1x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, OpenAI o4-mini delivers lower response latency at 680ms TTFT (60ms faster than GPT-6 Astra) with 125 vs. 74 tok/s throughput. GPT-6 Astra leads coding evaluations at 75.7% SWE-bench Verified vs. 68.1% for OpenAI o4-mini and 96.0% vs. 81.4% on GPQA Diamond.
OpenAI o4-mini vs DeepSeek V4 Pro
OpenAI o4-mini is 16.7% cheaper for input tokens ($1.10 vs. $1.32 per 1M tokens) and $4.40 vs. $3.96 for output tokens (1.2x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, DeepSeek V4 Pro delivers lower response latency at 520ms TTFT (160ms faster than OpenAI o4-mini) with 78 vs. 125 tok/s throughput. DeepSeek V4 Pro leads coding evaluations at 80.6% SWE-bench Verified vs. 68.1% for OpenAI o4-mini and 90.1% vs. 81.4% on GPQA Diamond.
OpenAI o4-mini vs DeepSeek R1
DeepSeek R1 is 50.0% cheaper for input tokens ($0.55 vs. $1.10 per 1M tokens) and $2.19 vs. $4.40 for output tokens (2.0x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, OpenAI o4-mini delivers lower response latency at 680ms TTFT (770ms faster than DeepSeek R1) with 125 vs. 58 tok/s throughput. OpenAI o4-mini leads coding evaluations at 68.1% SWE-bench Verified vs. 49.2% for DeepSeek R1 and 81.4% vs. 71.5% on GPQA Diamond.
OpenAI o4-mini vs DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision (Exp)
DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision (Exp) is 80.0% cheaper for input tokens ($0.22 vs. $1.10 per 1M tokens) and $0.65 vs. $4.40 for output tokens (5.0x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision (Exp) delivers lower response latency at 310ms TTFT (370ms faster than OpenAI o4-mini) with 165 vs. 125 tok/s throughput. DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision (Exp) leads coding evaluations at 77.4% SWE-bench Verified vs. 68.1% for OpenAI o4-mini and 91.3% vs. 81.4% on GPQA Diamond.
OpenAI o4-mini vs OpenAI o3
OpenAI o4-mini is 45.0% cheaper for input tokens ($1.10 vs. $2.00 per 1M tokens) and $4.40 vs. $8.00 for output tokens (1.8x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, OpenAI o4-mini delivers lower response latency at 680ms TTFT (470ms faster than OpenAI o3) with 125 vs. 82 tok/s throughput. OpenAI o3 leads coding evaluations at 71.7% SWE-bench Verified vs. 68.1% for OpenAI o4-mini and 87.7% vs. 81.4% on GPQA Diamond.
OpenAI o4-mini vs Claude 4 Opus
OpenAI o4-mini is 92.7% cheaper for input tokens ($1.10 vs. $15.00 per 1M tokens) and $4.40 vs. $75.00 for output tokens (13.6x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, OpenAI o4-mini delivers lower response latency at 680ms TTFT (240ms faster than Claude 4 Opus) with 125 vs. 46 tok/s throughput. Claude 4 Opus leads coding evaluations at 77.2% SWE-bench Verified vs. 68.1% for OpenAI o4-mini and 87.1% vs. 81.4% on GPQA Diamond.
OpenAI o4-mini vs Claude 3.7 Sonnet
OpenAI o4-mini is 63.3% cheaper for input tokens ($1.10 vs. $3.00 per 1M tokens) and $4.40 vs. $15.00 for output tokens (2.7x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Claude 3.7 Sonnet delivers lower response latency at 540ms TTFT (140ms faster than OpenAI o4-mini) with 72 vs. 125 tok/s throughput. Claude 3.7 Sonnet leads coding evaluations at 70.3% SWE-bench Verified vs. 68.1% for OpenAI o4-mini and 78.5% vs. 81.4% on GPQA Diamond.
OpenAI o4-mini vs Gemini 3.1 Pro
OpenAI o4-mini is 12.0% cheaper for input tokens ($1.10 vs. $1.25 per 1M tokens) and $4.40 vs. $10.00 for output tokens (1.1x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Gemini 3.1 Pro delivers lower response latency at 420ms TTFT (260ms faster than OpenAI o4-mini) with 98 vs. 125 tok/s throughput. Gemini 3.1 Pro leads coding evaluations at 71.8% SWE-bench Verified vs. 68.1% for OpenAI o4-mini and 82.4% vs. 81.4% on GPQA Diamond.
OpenAI o4-mini vs Grok 4
OpenAI o4-mini is 56.0% cheaper for input tokens ($1.10 vs. $2.50 per 1M tokens) and $4.40 vs. $12.50 for output tokens (2.3x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Grok 4 delivers lower response latency at 480ms TTFT (200ms faster than OpenAI o4-mini) with 95 vs. 125 tok/s throughput. Grok 4 leads coding evaluations at 73.2% SWE-bench Verified vs. 68.1% for OpenAI o4-mini and 86.2% vs. 81.4% on GPQA Diamond.
OpenAI o4-mini vs Llama 4 Maverick
Llama 4 Maverick is 81.8% cheaper for input tokens ($0.20 vs. $1.10 per 1M tokens) and $0.60 vs. $4.40 for output tokens (5.5x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Llama 4 Maverick delivers lower response latency at 135ms TTFT (545ms faster than OpenAI o4-mini) with 175 vs. 125 tok/s throughput. OpenAI o4-mini leads coding evaluations at 68.1% SWE-bench Verified vs. 62.4% for Llama 4 Maverick and 81.4% vs. 73.8% on GPQA Diamond.
OpenAI o4-mini vs Qwen 3.8 Flash Next
Qwen 3.8 Flash Next is 85.5% cheaper for input tokens ($0.16 vs. $1.10 per 1M tokens) and $0.47 vs. $4.40 for output tokens (6.9x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Qwen 3.8 Flash Next delivers lower response latency at 280ms TTFT (400ms faster than OpenAI o4-mini) with 185 vs. 125 tok/s throughput. Qwen 3.8 Flash Next leads coding evaluations at 81.0% SWE-bench Verified vs. 68.1% for OpenAI o4-mini and 91.7% vs. 81.4% on GPQA Diamond.
OpenAI o4-mini vs Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite is 93.2% cheaper for input tokens ($0.07 vs. $1.10 per 1M tokens) and $0.30 vs. $4.40 for output tokens (14.7x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite delivers lower response latency at 78ms TTFT (602ms faster than OpenAI o4-mini) with 265 vs. 125 tok/s throughput. OpenAI o4-mini leads coding evaluations at 68.1% SWE-bench Verified vs. 55.4% for Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite and 81.4% vs. 68.4% on GPQA Diamond.
OpenAI o4-mini vs DeepSeek V3
DeepSeek V3 is 87.3% cheaper for input tokens ($0.14 vs. $1.10 per 1M tokens) and $0.28 vs. $4.40 for output tokens (7.9x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, DeepSeek V3 delivers lower response latency at 410ms TTFT (270ms faster than OpenAI o4-mini) with 78 vs. 125 tok/s throughput. OpenAI o4-mini leads coding evaluations at 68.1% SWE-bench Verified vs. 42.0% for DeepSeek V3 and 81.4% vs. 59.1% on GPQA Diamond.
OpenAI o4-mini vs Gemma 4 31B IT
Gemma 4 31B IT is 89.1% cheaper for input tokens ($0.12 vs. $1.10 per 1M tokens) and $0.36 vs. $4.40 for output tokens (9.2x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Gemma 4 31B IT delivers lower response latency at 115ms TTFT (565ms faster than OpenAI o4-mini) with 155 vs. 125 tok/s throughput. OpenAI o4-mini leads coding evaluations at 68.1% SWE-bench Verified vs. 59.2% for Gemma 4 31B IT and 81.4% vs. 71.2% on GPQA Diamond.
OpenAI o4-mini vs OpenAI o3-mini
OpenAI o3-mini and OpenAI o4-mini share identical input pricing at $1.10 per 1M tokens ($4.40 vs. $4.40 output). In terms of operational performance, OpenAI o4-mini delivers lower response latency at 680ms TTFT (270ms faster than OpenAI o3-mini) with 125 vs. 98 tok/s throughput. OpenAI o4-mini leads coding evaluations at 68.1% SWE-bench Verified vs. 49.3% for OpenAI o3-mini and 81.4% vs. 79.7% on GPQA Diamond.
OpenAI o4-mini vs Claude 3.5 Haiku
Claude 3.5 Haiku is 27.3% cheaper for input tokens ($0.80 vs. $1.10 per 1M tokens) and $4.00 vs. $4.40 for output tokens (1.4x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Claude 3.5 Haiku delivers lower response latency at 190ms TTFT (490ms faster than OpenAI o4-mini) with 130 vs. 125 tok/s throughput. OpenAI o4-mini leads coding evaluations at 68.1% SWE-bench Verified vs. 40.6% for Claude 3.5 Haiku and 81.4% vs. 41.6% on GPQA Diamond.
OpenAI o4-mini vs Claude 3.5 Sonnet
OpenAI o4-mini is 63.3% cheaper for input tokens ($1.10 vs. $3.00 per 1M tokens) and $4.40 vs. $15.00 for output tokens (2.7x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Claude 3.5 Sonnet delivers lower response latency at 310ms TTFT (370ms faster than OpenAI o4-mini) with 80 vs. 125 tok/s throughput. OpenAI o4-mini leads coding evaluations at 68.1% SWE-bench Verified vs. 49.0% for Claude 3.5 Sonnet and 81.4% vs. 59.4% on GPQA Diamond.
OpenAI o4-mini vs Gemini 2.0 Flash
Gemini 2.0 Flash is 90.9% cheaper for input tokens ($0.10 vs. $1.10 per 1M tokens) and $0.40 vs. $4.40 for output tokens (11.0x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Gemini 2.0 Flash delivers lower response latency at 280ms TTFT (400ms faster than OpenAI o4-mini) with 185 vs. 125 tok/s throughput. OpenAI o4-mini leads coding evaluations at 68.1% SWE-bench Verified vs. 51.8% for Gemini 2.0 Flash and 81.4% vs. 63.6% on GPQA Diamond.
OpenAI o4-mini vs Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash is 72.7% cheaper for input tokens ($0.30 vs. $1.10 per 1M tokens) and $2.50 vs. $4.40 for output tokens (3.7x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Gemini 2.5 Flash delivers lower response latency at 110ms TTFT (570ms faster than OpenAI o4-mini) with 180 vs. 125 tok/s throughput. OpenAI o4-mini leads coding evaluations at 68.1% SWE-bench Verified vs. 58.0% for Gemini 2.5 Flash and 81.4% vs. 70.5% on GPQA Diamond.
OpenAI o4-mini vs Gemini 2.5 Pro
OpenAI o4-mini is 12.0% cheaper for input tokens ($1.10 vs. $1.25 per 1M tokens) and $4.40 vs. $10.00 for output tokens (1.1x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, OpenAI o4-mini delivers lower response latency at 680ms TTFT (20ms faster than Gemini 2.5 Pro) with 125 vs. 80 tok/s throughput. OpenAI o4-mini leads coding evaluations at 68.1% SWE-bench Verified vs. 63.8% for Gemini 2.5 Pro and 81.4% vs. 74.0% on GPQA Diamond.
OpenAI o4-mini vs GLM-5.3-Flash
GLM-5.3-Flash is 89.1% cheaper for input tokens ($0.12 vs. $1.10 per 1M tokens) and $0.40 vs. $4.40 for output tokens (9.2x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, GLM-5.3-Flash delivers lower response latency at 90ms TTFT (590ms faster than OpenAI o4-mini) with 175 vs. 125 tok/s throughput. OpenAI o4-mini leads coding evaluations at 68.1% SWE-bench Verified vs. 52.8% for GLM-5.3-Flash and 81.4% vs. 63.5% on GPQA Diamond.
OpenAI o4-mini vs GLM-5.3
GLM-5.3 is 68.2% cheaper for input tokens ($0.35 vs. $1.10 per 1M tokens) and $1.00 vs. $4.40 for output tokens (3.1x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, GLM-5.3 delivers lower response latency at 160ms TTFT (520ms faster than OpenAI o4-mini) with 120 vs. 125 tok/s throughput. OpenAI o4-mini leads coding evaluations at 68.1% SWE-bench Verified vs. 56.0% for GLM-5.3 and 81.4% vs. 67.0% on GPQA Diamond.
OpenAI o4-mini vs GPT-4o 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.
OpenAI o4-mini vs GPT-4o
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.
OpenAI o4-mini vs GPT-6.1 Sol
OpenAI o4-mini is 45.0% cheaper for input tokens ($1.10 vs. $2.00 per 1M tokens) and $4.40 vs. $10.00 for output tokens (1.8x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, GPT-6.1 Sol delivers lower response latency at 520ms TTFT (160ms faster than OpenAI o4-mini) with 135 vs. 125 tok/s throughput. GPT-6.1 Sol leads coding evaluations at 86.4% SWE-bench Verified vs. 68.1% for OpenAI o4-mini and 92.4% vs. 81.4% on GPQA Diamond.
OpenAI o4-mini vs Grok 3 Mini
Grok 3 Mini is 72.7% cheaper for input tokens ($0.30 vs. $1.10 per 1M tokens) and $1.20 vs. $4.40 for output tokens (3.7x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Grok 3 Mini delivers lower response latency at 150ms TTFT (530ms faster than OpenAI o4-mini) with 160 vs. 125 tok/s throughput. OpenAI o4-mini leads coding evaluations at 68.1% SWE-bench Verified vs. 54.0% for Grok 3 Mini and 81.4% vs. 68.0% on GPQA Diamond.
OpenAI o4-mini vs Grok 3
OpenAI o4-mini is 63.3% cheaper for input tokens ($1.10 vs. $3.00 per 1M tokens) and $4.40 vs. $15.00 for output tokens (2.7x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Grok 3 delivers lower response latency at 620ms TTFT (60ms faster than OpenAI o4-mini) with 88 vs. 125 tok/s throughput. OpenAI o4-mini leads coding evaluations at 68.1% SWE-bench Verified vs. 65.8% for Grok 3 and 81.4% vs. 84.6% on GPQA Diamond.
OpenAI o4-mini vs Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
Llama 3.3 70B Instruct is 89.1% cheaper for input tokens ($0.12 vs. $1.10 per 1M tokens) and $0.30 vs. $4.40 for output tokens (9.2x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Llama 3.3 70B Instruct delivers lower response latency at 145ms TTFT (535ms faster than OpenAI o4-mini) with 165 vs. 125 tok/s throughput. OpenAI o4-mini leads coding evaluations at 68.1% SWE-bench Verified vs. 42.5% for Llama 3.3 70B Instruct and 81.4% vs. 55.6% on GPQA Diamond.
OpenAI o4-mini vs Mistral Large 2 (2411)
OpenAI o4-mini is 45.0% cheaper for input tokens ($1.10 vs. $2.00 per 1M tokens) and $4.40 vs. $6.00 for output tokens (1.8x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Mistral Large 2 (2411) delivers lower response latency at 380ms TTFT (300ms faster than OpenAI o4-mini) with 75 vs. 125 tok/s throughput. OpenAI o4-mini leads coding evaluations at 68.1% SWE-bench Verified vs. 45.2% for Mistral Large 2 (2411) and 81.4% vs. 54.2% on GPQA Diamond.
OpenAI o4-mini vs o1
OpenAI o4-mini is 92.7% cheaper for input tokens ($1.10 vs. $15.00 per 1M tokens) and $4.40 vs. $60.00 for output tokens (13.6x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, OpenAI o4-mini delivers lower response latency at 680ms TTFT (1920ms faster than o1) with 125 vs. 48 tok/s throughput. OpenAI o4-mini leads coding evaluations at 68.1% SWE-bench Verified vs. 48.9% for o1 and 81.4% vs. 78.0% on GPQA Diamond.
OpenAI o4-mini vs Qwen 3.8 27B
Qwen 3.8 27B is 81.8% cheaper for input tokens ($0.20 vs. $1.10 per 1M tokens) and $0.60 vs. $4.40 for output tokens (5.5x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Qwen 3.8 27B delivers lower response latency at 120ms TTFT (560ms 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. 58.4% for Qwen 3.8 27B and 81.4% vs. 68.0% on GPQA Diamond.
Frequently Asked Questions & Query Fan-Out
How much does OpenAI o4-mini cost per 1M tokens including prompt caching?
OpenAI o4-mini costs $1.10 per million input tokens and $4.40 per million output tokens. Cached input reads cost $0.275 per 1M tokens, reducing repeated context costs by 75%.
What are OpenAI o4-mini's coding and reasoning benchmark scores?
OpenAI o4-mini achieves 68.1% on SWE-bench Verified, 94% on HumanEval coding, 81.4% on GPQA Diamond graduate-level science, 85.6% on MMLU-Pro, and 97.8% on MATH-500, earning an overall Inference Value Ratio (IVR) of 63.7/100.
What is the context window, TTFT latency, and token throughput of OpenAI o4-mini?
OpenAI o4-mini supports a 204,800 token context window (100,000 max output tokens) and operates at 680ms average Time to First Token (TTFT) with 125 tokens/sec output streaming throughput.
What are the primary production use cases for OpenAI o4-mini?
Automated PR review, high-volume agentic coding loops, SQL/data analysis, and visual document reasoning.