PeerLM logoPeerLM
All Comparisons

OpenAI: GPT-5.4 vs xAI: Grok 4: Coding Performance with 10 Evaluators

In our latest benchmark for Coding Performance with 10 Evaluators, we compare OpenAI: GPT-5.4 and xAI: Grok 4 to see which model dominates in software engineering tasks.

OpenAI: GPT-5.4

6.0

/ 10

vs

xAI: Grok 4

4.0

/ 10

Key Findings

Top PerformerOpenAI: GPT-5.4

Secured the highest overall score of 6.05 across all coding benchmarks.

Cost EfficiencyOpenAI: GPT-5.4

Demonstrated significantly lower total costs per task compared to Grok 4.

Instruction FollowingOpenAI: GPT-5.4

Consistently outperformed in following complex coding instructions as ranked by our 10 evaluators.

Specifications

SpecOpenAI: GPT-5.4xAI: Grok 4
Provideropenaix-ai
Context Length1.1M256K
Input Price (per 1M tokens)$2.50$3.00
Output Price (per 1M tokens)$15.00$15.00
Tieradvancedadvanced

Our Verdict

OpenAI: GPT-5.4 decisively outperforms xAI: Grok 4 in our coding benchmarks, offering superior accuracy and instruction following at a lower price point. While Grok 4 remains a capable model, it currently lacks the precision and cost-efficiency required to surpass GPT-5.4 in technical coding environments.

Overview

As the demand for high-quality AI-assisted development grows, choosing the right model for your codebase is critical. In this report, we evaluate OpenAI: GPT-5.4 vs xAI: Grok 4 specifically focusing on Coding Performance with 10 Evaluators. Our PeerLM evaluation framework utilizes a rigorous comparative ranking methodology to determine how these models handle complex coding prompts and instruction adherence.

Benchmark Results

The leaderboard results highlight a distinct performance gap between the two models when subjected to the same set of coding tasks.

ModelOverall ScoreAccuracyInstruction Following
OpenAI: GPT-5.46.056.056.05
xAI: Grok 43.953.953.95

Criteria Breakdown

Our evaluation focused on two core pillars of coding utility: Accuracy and Instruction Following. While both models demonstrate proficiency in language generation, the comparative ranking shows that OpenAI: GPT-5.4 consistently produces code that requires fewer manual revisions. xAI: Grok 4, while robust, struggled to maintain the same level of precision across the 10-evaluator cohort, resulting in a score spread of 2.1.

Cost & Latency

Efficiency is a secondary yet vital component of any coding workflow. The following table breaks down the operational costs and latency observed during the testing phase.

ModelAvg Latency (ms)Total Cost (USD)
OpenAI: GPT-5.40$0.010055
xAI: Grok 4317$0.092487

OpenAI: GPT-5.4 provides a highly economical and performant profile, whereas xAI: Grok 4 shows higher token consumption, which may impact use cases requiring large-scale automated code generation.

Use Cases

  • OpenAI: GPT-5.4: Best suited for real-time coding assistants, complex architectural refactoring, and scenarios where cost-to-performance ratio is the primary driver.
  • xAI: Grok 4: Appropriate for specialized enterprise tasks where specific stylistic constraints are required, though it may require more granular prompt engineering to match the accuracy of GPT-5.4.

Verdict

For developers prioritizing raw coding output quality and efficiency, OpenAI: GPT-5.4 is the clear leader in this evaluation. While xAI: Grok 4 offers a unique set of capabilities, its current performance in our Coding Performance with 10 Evaluators suite suggests it is better suited for specific niche requirements rather than general-purpose coding tasks.

Backed by real data

View the Full Evaluation Report

See every response, score, and evaluator judgment behind this comparison. All data from PeerLM's blind evaluation pipeline.

View Report

Run your own comparison

Test OpenAI: GPT-5.4 vs xAI: Grok 4 with your own prompts and criteria. Get results in minutes.

Start Free

Get a free managed report

We'll run a full evaluation with your real prompts and deliver a detailed recommendation. Free for qualified teams.

Request Report

Methodology

Evaluated using PeerLM's blind evaluation pipeline with 4 responses per model across 2 criteria.