Roboflow

GPT-5.4 Mini vs GPT-6.1 Terra

GPT-6.1 Terra and GPT-5.4 Mini score 85.8% vs 53.2% averaged across five Vision Evals tasks (#2 and #53 of 65 models), so GPT-6.1 Terra leads overall.

  • GPT-6.1 Terra wins all 5 tasks, with its widest lead on object detection (84.7% vs 15.8%).
  • GPT-5.4 Mini is faster: 5.5s vs 10.1s per sample.

Compare GPT-5.4 Mini vs GPT-6.1 Terra live

Run the same image across every model that supports a task and compare their outputs side-by-side.

Detect and compare bounding boxes across models on the same image.

Open Object Detection in the full playground
OpenAIGPT-5.4 Mini
Run to compare this model.
OpenAIGPT-6.1 Terra
Run to compare this model.

GPT-5.4 Mini vs GPT-6.1 Terra on Vision Evals

Score by taskGPT-5.4 MiniGPT-6.1 Terra
Object Detection
15.8
84.7
OCR
51.1
81.9
Reasoning
57.0
85.4
Counting
58.6
80.2
Identification
83.3
96.9

Roboflow Vision Evals. Full breakdown below.

GPT-5.4 Mini vs GPT-6.1 Terra Comparison Table

Evals updated October 26, 2026Pricing updated October 27, 2026

PropertyGPT-5.4 MiniGPT-6.1 Terra
OrganizationOpenAIOpenAI
Categoryclosedclosed
Modalitymultimodalmultimodal
Release DateMar 2026Oct 2026
Context Window400K1.1M
ParametersUnknownundisclosed
LicenseProprietaryProprietary
Commercial usecommercial use per vendor termscommercial use per vendor terms
Pricing per 1M tokens
Input $/1M$0.750$1.00
Output $/1M$4.50$5.00
Vision Tasks
Promptable Concept SegmentationNot listedDemo
Both support 10 more tasks
Model Features
Both support 3 more features
Vision Evalsground-truth scores across 5 vision tasks, pooled at low effort
Overall
53.2%
85.8%
Avg cost / sample$0.0034$0.0033
Avg speed / sample5.51s10.05s
By task
Object Detection (low)
15.8%
±0.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 15.3 to 16.1
$0.0044
84.7%
±0.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 84.7 to 84.8
$0.0051
Object Detection (high)
16.6%
±0.8, Mean of 3 runs, range 15.8 to 17.4
$0.030
84.7%
±0.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 84.2 to 84.9
$0.0081
Counting (low)
58.6%
±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 56.8 to 60.8
$0.0019
80.2%
±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.4 to 82.4
$0.0018
Counting (high)
64.9%
±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 63.5 to 67.6
$0.0073
84.2%
±3.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 81.1 to 87.8
$0.0029
Identification (low)
83.3%
±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 81.3 to 84.4
$0.0013
96.9%
±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 96.9 to 96.9
$0.0013
Identification (high)
82.3%
±3.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.1 to 84.4
$0.0055
96.9%
±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 96.9 to 96.9
$0.0014
OCR (low)
51.1%
$0.0035
81.9%
$0.0033
by category
Single value
41.3%
Transcription
77.3%
Structured JSON
73.6%
Text localization
4.1%
Single value
70.9%
Transcription
96.7%
Structured JSON
91.5%
Text localization
77.6%
OCR (high)
55.8%
$0.027
84.4%
$0.0066
by category
Single value
47.0%
Transcription
78.5%
Structured JSON
79.0%
Text localization
6.1%
Single value
74.8%
Transcription
97.0%
Structured JSON
93.4%
Text localization
79.2%
Reasoning (low)
57.0%
±3.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 54.3 to 60.9
$0.0022
85.4%
±1.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 83.4 to 86.8
$0.0016
Reasoning (high)
64.0%
±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 62.9 to 65.6
$0.0096
87.0%
±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 85.4 to 88.1
$0.0023

GPT-5.4 Mini vs GPT-6.1 Terra: Overview

GPT-5.4 Mini

GPT-5.4 mini is a fast, cost-efficient model developed by OpenAI and released on March 17, 2026, optimized for high-throughput workloads and subagent orchestration. It supports text and image inputs within a 400,000-token context window, making it ideal for processing extensive visual datasets and large codebases in a single request. Designed for low-latency production environments, the model integrates with key API features including function calling, web search, and tool-based computer use, allowing it to assist in automated workflows that require navigating digital interfaces.

Compared to the previous GPT-5 mini, this version runs more than twice as fast while approaching the performance levels of the flagship GPT-5.4 on reasoning and coding benchmarks. While the larger GPT-5.4 introduces native, state-of-the-art computer-use capabilities, GPT-5.4 mini provides a scalable alternative for interpreting screenshots and reasoning over dense UI layouts. For vision tasks on Playground, it excels at extracting structured information from visual documents and assisting in agentic tasks that involve real-time interpretation of software interfaces alongside text.

GPT-6.1 Terra

GPT-6.1 Terra is an OpenAI model released on October 26, 2026 for visual reasoning, computer use and writing. It accepts text and image inputs and produces text, with a 1,050,000-token context window and up to 128,000 output tokens. OpenAI lists applications including matching product photographs to catalog entries, interpreting technical drawings and operating application screens.

The API exposes six reasoning effort settings: none, low, medium, high, xhigh and max. Medium is the default. The model supports structured outputs and tool calling through the Responses API. Vision Evals reports its Low and High results for text understanding, counting, identification, reasoning and object detection, using native OpenAI API inference. Terra is a proprietary model; its weights are not released.

Frequently Asked Questions

On Roboflow's Vision Evals, GPT-6.1 Terra performed better. It scores higher on all five vision tasks and averages 85.8% (#2 of 65) against 53.2% (#53 of 65) for GPT-5.4 Mini. These scores measure vision capabilities only; either model may perform differently on work outside this benchmark's tasks.

No. On the Vision Evals Object Detection benchmark at low effort, GPT-6.1 Terra leads with 84.7% against 15.8%. This is the widest gap between the two models across the benchmark's tasks.

GPT-6.1 Terra is cheaper to run. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals task mix it averaged $0.0033 per sample against $0.0034. GPT-5.4 Mini is priced at $0.75 per 1M input tokens and $4.50 per 1M output; GPT-6.1 Terra is priced at $1.00 per 1M input tokens and $5.00 per 1M output. Actual costs depend on your image sizes, prompts, and output length.

GPT-5.4 Mini is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 5.5s per inference against 10.1s. Latency varies with image size, prompt length, and provider load, so treat these as relative rather than guaranteed figures.

Yes. The comparison demo on this page runs both models on the same image side by side for open prompts and object detection in the free Roboflow Playground. You can try it instantly, and a free account unlocks unlimited runs.