Which AI Agent Wins? GPT‑5.4 vs Claude vs Gemini – Benchmarks, Pricing & Use‑Case Guide

Background

Anthropic (Claude Opus 4.6), OpenAI (GPT‑5.4) and Google (Gemini 3.1 Pro) have all released “agent‑native” models that can read the screen, move the mouse and type on a keyboard. The following summary consolidates official specifications, benchmark results and developer observations to help choose the most appropriate model for a given workload.

Model specifications

Claude Opus 4.6 – First to ship Computer‑Use (Oct 2024). Context window 1 M tokens. API pricing $5.00 / 1M input tokens, $25.00 / 1M output tokens (beta). Emphasises reliability and safety; ecosystem is relatively closed.

GPT‑5.4 – Released 5 Mar 2026 with native computer‑use. Context window 1.05 M tokens. API pricing $2.50 / 1M input tokens, $15.00 / 1M output tokens (≈2‑3× cheaper than Claude). Designed for high‑throughput agent calls.

Gemini 3.1 Pro (Project Mariner) – Launched late 2024, bundled with the $249.99 / month Google AI Ultra subscription. Context window 1 M tokens. Pricing $2.00 / 1M input, $12.00 / 1M output. Provides native multimodal (image/video) capabilities but is still in beta and lags behind the other two on pure agent tasks.

Benchmark results

1. Desktop‑agent performance (OSWorld‑Verified)

GPT‑5.4: 75 % success rate, +2.6 % over the human baseline (72.4 %).

Claude Opus 4.6: 72.7 % success rate, +0.3 % over human.

Human baseline: 72.4 %.

GPT‑5.4 exceeds average human performance and beats Claude by 2.3 percentage points, a margin that can be decisive in complex workflows.

2. Coding ability (SWE‑Bench)

Claude Opus 4.6: 80.8 % on complex software‑engineering and code‑refactoring tasks.

GPT‑5.4: 57.7 % on automation‑script and rapid‑prototype tasks.

Claude remains stronger on large‑scale code understanding, but GPT‑5.4’s win‑rate of 56 % on production‑oriented coding indicates the gap is narrowing.

3. Pricing (key decision factor)

Gemini 3.1 Pro: $2.00 / 1M input, $12.00 / 1M output, 1 M token context.

GPT‑5.4: $2.50 / 1M input, $15.00 / 1M output, 1.05 M token context.

Claude Opus 4.6: $5.00 / 1M input, $25.00 / 1M output, 1 M token context (beta).

Claude’s cost is 2‑3× higher, which can become prohibitive for high‑frequency agent calls.

4. Additional metrics

BrowseComp (multistep web‑research): GPT‑5.4 82.7 % (Pro version 89.3 %).

GDPval (44 domains vs. experts): GPT‑5.4 83 % win‑rate; GPT‑5.2 only 70.9 %.

TerminalBench 2.0: GPT‑5.4 75.1 % – top among general‑purpose models.

Error‑rate reduction vs. GPT‑5.2: 33 % lower.

Developer selection guide

Choose the model that best matches the workload’s requirements:

Browser automation / complex cross‑app desktop tasks : GPT‑5.4 – longest context, lowest API cost, robust state handling.

High‑reliability or safety‑critical workloads (e.g., finance, healthcare) : Claude Opus 4.6 – lower error rate and stronger alignment, despite higher price.

Multimodal image/video understanding : Gemini 3.1 Pro – native multimodal pipeline.

Budget‑sensitive rapid prototyping or startup projects : GPT‑5.4 – best cost‑performance ratio.

Implications

The three providers are accelerating the emergence of de‑facto standards for AI agents. OpenAI’s aggressive pricing is likely to trigger a price‑competition that benefits developers, while Google must deliver a stable, fully‑released Project Mariner to stay relevant. Claude retains a technical edge in reliability but must justify its premium cost for broader adoption.

Conclusion

All three models have distinct strengths: Claude leads on safety and reliability, GPT‑5.4 excels in raw performance and cost efficiency, and Gemini offers the most advanced multimodal capabilities. The decisive factor is the developer’s ability to match the right agent to the specific workflow.