Model Comparison

GPT-5.4 vs IBM Granite 4.0 Tiny PreviewWhich is better in 2026?

Comparing GPT-5.4 and IBM Granite 4.0 Tiny Preview across benchmarks, pricing, and capabilities.

Verdict: GPT-5.4 vs IBM Granite 4.0 Tiny Preview — which is better?

GPT-5.4 (by OpenAI) and IBM Granite 4.0 Tiny Preview (by IBM) are two of the AI models people compare most. Here is how they stack up on benchmarks, price and capabilities, and which one to pick in 2026.

Choose GPT-5.4 if…

  • you want the most recent training data — it shipped Mar 2026

Choose IBM Granite 4.0 Tiny Preview if…

  • you need open weights you can self-host or fine-tune
Want to compare interactively?Try the playground

Performance Benchmarks

Comparative analysis across standard metrics

No common benchmarks found

GPT-5.4 and IBM Granite 4.0 Tiny Previewdon't have any common benchmark datasets to compare. They may have been evaluated on different testing suites.

Arena Performance

Human preference votes

Context Window

Maximum input and output token capacity

Only GPT-5.4 specifies input context (1,000,000 tokens). Only GPT-5.4 specifies output context (128,000 tokens).

OpenAI
GPT-5.4
Input1,000,000 tokens
Output128,000 tokens
IBM
IBM Granite 4.0 Tiny Preview
Input- tokens
Output- tokens
Tue Jun 09 2026 • llm-stats.com

Input Capabilities

Supported data types and modalities

GPT-5.4 supports multimodal inputs, whereas IBM Granite 4.0 Tiny Preview does not.

GPT-5.4 can handle both text and other forms of data like images, making it suitable for multimodal applications.

GPT-5.4

Text
Images
Audio
Video

IBM Granite 4.0 Tiny Preview

Text
Images
Audio
Video

License

Usage and distribution terms

GPT-5.4 is licensed under a proprietary license, while IBM Granite 4.0 Tiny Preview uses Apache 2.0.

License differences may affect how you can use these models in commercial or open-source projects.

GPT-5.4

Proprietary

Closed source

IBM Granite 4.0 Tiny Preview

Apache 2.0

Open weights

Release Timeline

When each model was launched

GPT-5.4 was released on 2026-03-05, while IBM Granite 4.0 Tiny Preview was released on 2025-05-02.

GPT-5.4 is 10 months newer than IBM Granite 4.0 Tiny Preview.

GPT-5.4

Mar 5, 2026

3 months ago

10mo newer
IBM Granite 4.0 Tiny Preview

May 2, 2025

1.1 years ago

Knowledge Cutoff

When training data ends

Neither model specifies a knowledge cutoff date.

Unable to compare the recency of their training data.

No cutoff dates available

Outputs Comparison

Notice missing or incorrect data?Start an Issue discussion→

Key Takeaways

OpenAI
Larger context window (1,000,000 tokens)
Supports multimodal inputs
IBM
Has open weights

Detailed Comparison

AI Model Comparison Table
Feature
OpenAI
GPT-5.4
IBM
IBM Granite 4.0 Tiny Preview

FAQ

Common questions about GPT-5.4 vs IBM Granite 4.0 Tiny Preview.

Which is better, GPT-5.4 or IBM Granite 4.0 Tiny Preview?

GPT-5.4 (OpenAI) and IBM Granite 4.0 Tiny Preview (IBM) each have strengths in different areas. Compare their benchmark scores, pricing, context windows, and capabilities above to determine which fits your needs.

How does GPT-5.4 compare to IBM Granite 4.0 Tiny Preview in benchmarks?

GPT-5.4 scores Tau2 Telecom: 98.9%, ARC-AGI: 93.7%, Graphwalks BFS <128k: 93.0%, GPQA: 92.8%, Graphwalks parents <128k: 89.8%. IBM Granite 4.0 Tiny Preview scores AttaQ: 86.1%, HumanEval: 82.4%, HumanEval+: 78.3%, GSM8k: 70.1%, IFEval: 63.0%.

What are the context window sizes for GPT-5.4 and IBM Granite 4.0 Tiny Preview?

GPT-5.4 supports 1.0M tokens and IBM Granite 4.0 Tiny Preview supports an unknown number of tokens. A larger context window lets you process longer documents, conversations, or codebases in a single request.

What are the main differences between GPT-5.4 and IBM Granite 4.0 Tiny Preview?

Key differences include multimodal support (yes vs no), licensing (Proprietary vs Apache 2.0). See the full comparison above for benchmark-by-benchmark results.

Who makes GPT-5.4 and IBM Granite 4.0 Tiny Preview?

GPT-5.4 is developed by OpenAI and IBM Granite 4.0 Tiny Preview is developed by IBM.

Related comparisons