GPT-5.4 mini OpenAI
💰 Total Cost Calculation (from Plugin)
Output: $0.000675
Output: $0.000675
Unit: $0.000000
Fees: $0.000000
Advanced Cost Breakdown (from Plugin)
Detailed Cost Analysis (from Plugin)
For 1,000 input tokens and 600 output tokens:
- Input Cost: $0.000188
- Output Cost: $0.000675
- Total Cost: $0.000778
- Cost per 1K tokens: $0.000486
- Tokens per dollar: 2,056,225 tokens
- Context Window: 400000 tokens
Speed & Performance Analysis
With a processing speed of 500 tokens per second and 180ms time to first token:
- Processing Time: 3.60 seconds
- Latency: 180 milliseconds to first token
- Base Throughput: 500 tokens/second
- Effective Throughput: 467 tokens/second (temperature-adjusted)
Best Use Cases
Want this applied to YOUR actual stack?
This calculator shows the math for GPT-5.4 mini. Your decision needs more — current infrastructure, compliance requirements, actual workload patterns, volume tiers — that change which model is right for you.
Get a $39 personalized AI Architecture Audit. PDF tailored to your stack, delivered in under 60 seconds. 7-day no-questions-asked refund.
Get my instant AI audit — $39 →✨ Market Recommendations AI Model Registry
← Back to GPT-5.4 mini| Rank | AI Model & Provider | Total Cost | vs GPT-5.4 mini |
|---|---|---|---|
| 🏆 |
Mistral Small 3
Mistral AI
|
$0.000059 Best Value | ↓ 92.4% cheaper |
| 🥈 |
Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite
Google
|
$0.000259 | ↓ 66.7% cheaper |
| 🥉 |
Mistral Large 3
Mistral AI
|
$0.000294 | ↓ 62.2% cheaper |
| #4 |
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite
Google
|
$0.000416 | ↓ 46.5% cheaper |
| #5 |
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Google
|
$0.000416 | ↓ 46.5% cheaper |
| #6 |
Gemini 3.8 Flash
Google
|
$0.000666 | ↓ 14.5% cheaper |
| #7 |
o4-mini Deep Research
OpenAI
|
$0.000738 | ↓ 5.2% cheaper |
| #8 |
o4-mini
OpenAI
|
$0.000811 | ↑ 4.3% more |
| #9 |
Claude Haiku 4.5
Anthropic
|
$0.000888 | ↑ 14.1% more |
| #10 |
Gemini 3.1 Flash
Google
|
$0.001038 | ↑ 33.3% more |
| #11 |
GPT-5.6 Luna
OpenAI
|
$0.001038 | ↑ 33.3% more |
| #12 |
Gemini 3.6 Flash
Google
|
$0.001331 | ↑ 71.1% more |
| #13 |
Gemini 3.5 Flash
Google
|
$0.001556 | ↑ 100% more |
| #14 |
Grok 4.3
xAI
|
$0.001750 | ↑ 124.9% more |
| #15 |
Grok 4.20 Beta
xAI
|
$0.001750 | ↑ 124.9% more |
| #16 |
Claude Sonnet 5
Anthropic
|
$0.001775 | ↑ 128.1% more |
| #17 |
GPT-5.3 Codex Spark
OpenAI
|
$0.002341 | ↑ 200.8% more |
| #18 |
GPT-5.3 Instant
OpenAI
|
$0.002341 | ↑ 200.8% more |
| #19 |
GPT-5.6 Terra
OpenAI
|
$0.002594 | ↑ 233.3% more |
| #20 |
Claude Sonnet 4.6
Anthropic
|
$0.002663 | ↑ 242.2% more |
| #21 |
Gemini 2.5 Pro
Google
|
$0.003344 | ↑ 329.7% more |
| #22 |
Gemini 3.1 Pro
Google
|
$0.004150 | ↑ 433.3% more |
| #23 |
Claude Opus 4.7
Anthropic
|
$0.004438 | ↑ 470.3% more |
| #24 |
Claude Opus 5
Anthropic
|
$0.004438 | ↑ 470.3% more |
| #25 |
Claude Opus 4.8
Anthropic
|
$0.004438 | ↑ 470.3% more |
| #26 |
Claude Opus 4.6
Anthropic
|
$0.004438 | ↑ 470.3% more |
| #27 |
GPT-5.4
OpenAI
|
$0.005188 (rounded ~ $0.01) | ↑ 566.7% more |
| #28 |
GPT-5.4 Thinking
OpenAI
|
$0.005188 (rounded ~ $0.01) | ↑ 566.7% more |
| #29 |
GPT-5.5 Instant
OpenAI
|
$0.005188 (rounded ~ $0.01) | ↑ 566.7% more |
| #30 |
GPT-5.6 Sol
OpenAI
|
$0.005188 (rounded ~ $0.01) | ↑ 566.7% more |
| #31 |
o3 Deep Research
OpenAI
|
$0.007375 (rounded ~ $0.01) | ↑ 847.8% more |
| #32 |
Claude Fable 5.1
Anthropic
|
$0.008781 (rounded ~ $0.01) | ↑ 1028.5% more |
| #33 |
Claude Mythos 5.1
Anthropic
|
$0.008781 (rounded ~ $0.01) | ↑ 1028.5% more |
| #34 |
Claude Fable 5
Anthropic
|
$0.008875 (rounded ~ $0.01) | ↑ 1040.6% more |
| #35 |
Claude Mythos 5
Anthropic
|
$0.008875 (rounded ~ $0.01) | ↑ 1040.6% more |
| #36 |
GPT-5.5
OpenAI
|
$0.010375 | ↑ 1233.3% more |
| #37 |
o3 Pro
OpenAI
|
$0.014750 (rounded ~ $0.01) | ↑ 1795.6% more |
| #38 |
GPT-6 Astra
OpenAI
|
$0.017750 (rounded ~ $0.02) | ↑ 2181.1% more |
| #39 |
GPT-5.2 Pro
OpenAI
|
$0.028088 (rounded ~ $0.03) | ↑ 3509.6% more |
| #40 |
GPT-5.2 Pro
OpenAI
|
$0.028088 (rounded ~ $0.03) | ↑ 3509.6% more |
Mistral Small 3 Mistral AI
Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite Google
Mistral Large 3 Mistral AI
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite Google
Gemini 2.5 Flash Google
Gemini 3.8 Flash Google
o4-mini Deep Research OpenAI
o4-mini OpenAI
Claude Haiku 4.5 Anthropic
Gemini 3.1 Flash Google
GPT-5.6 Luna OpenAI
Gemini 3.6 Flash Google
Gemini 3.5 Flash Google
Grok 4.3 xAI
Grok 4.20 Beta xAI
Claude Sonnet 5 Anthropic
GPT-5.3 Codex Spark OpenAI
GPT-5.3 Instant OpenAI
GPT-5.6 Terra OpenAI
Claude Sonnet 4.6 Anthropic
Gemini 2.5 Pro Google
Gemini 3.1 Pro Google
Claude Opus 4.7 Anthropic
Claude Opus 5 Anthropic
Claude Opus 4.8 Anthropic
Claude Opus 4.6 Anthropic
GPT-5.4 OpenAI
GPT-5.4 Thinking OpenAI
GPT-5.5 Instant OpenAI
GPT-5.6 Sol OpenAI
o3 Deep Research OpenAI
Claude Fable 5.1 Anthropic
Claude Mythos 5.1 Anthropic
Claude Fable 5 Anthropic
Claude Mythos 5 Anthropic
GPT-5.5 OpenAI
o3 Pro OpenAI
GPT-6 Astra OpenAI
GPT-5.2 Pro OpenAI
GPT-5.2 Pro OpenAI
For high-volume email drafting, the primary objective is balancing response quality with consistent, predictable performance. Professionals managing hundreds of personalized emails daily need a model that can reliably follow instructions without requiring extensive manual re-editing. GPT-5.4 mini offers a compelling balance here, excelling at structured generation while maintaining the low-latency response times necessary for real-time inbox integration. In high-volume environments, efficiency is not just about raw speed but about minimizing the ‘fix-up’ loop—the time spent correcting the AI’s tone or factual slips. This model demonstrates strong adherence to defined brand voices, making it a reliable choice for teams that need to scale outreach while maintaining a human-like touch. When evaluating this model for your email pipeline, consider how its instruction-following capabilities align with your specific prompt complexity. If your drafting tasks involve simple, template-based outreach, this model provides excellent ROI. However, if your drafts require complex reasoning—such as synthesizing data from multiple internal documents or tailoring responses to nuanced client objections—you might find that moving up the model tier pays for itself by reducing human oversight. For enterprise users, the key is evaluating this model against your existing drafting latency and the percentage of drafts that require human intervention. When integrated effectively, it serves as a foundational engine for automated, personalized communication at scale, allowing your team to focus on strategy rather than repetitive drafting.