GPT-5.4 Nano vs SAM 3
Compare GPT-5.4 Nano and SAM 3 side-by-side. See how these vision models stack up in Object Detection.
Compare GPT-5.4 Nano vs SAM 3 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.
Upload an image
Drag and drop an image here, or click to browse
Models in this comparison
GPT-5.4 Nano vs SAM 3: Overview
GPT-5.4 nano is a high-throughput model developed by OpenAI and released on March 17, 2026, as the efficiency-optimized entry in the GPT-5.4 family. Engineered for cost-sensitive production environments and latency-critical workloads, it features an expanded 400,000-token context window that enables the processing of large document batches or extensive logs in a single pass. The model is primarily optimized for text-heavy operations, serving as a premier engine for high-volume classification, data extraction, ranking, and the orchestration of lightweight sub-agents where speed and low per-token costs are the primary requirements.
While it supports text and image inputs, GPT-5.4 nano is designed as a text-first worker rather than a specialized visual reasoning tool. In multi-model architectures, it is best utilized for structured text tasks and simple coding sub-tasks, leaving intensive vision reasoning and UI navigation to its sibling, GPT-5.4 mini. Compared to the previous GPT-5 nano, this version provides a significant leap in reliability for structured outputs and tool calling, making it a dependable and economical choice for developers building scalable, automated pipelines that require rapid execution at the edge of the GPT-5.4 ecosystem.
Released on November 19th, 2025, Segment Anything 3 (SAM 3) is a zero-shot image segmentation model that “detects, segments, and tracks objects in images and videos based on concept prompts.” This model was developed by Meta as the third model in the Segment Anything series.
Unlike its previous SAM models (Segment Anything and Segment Anything 2), you can provide SAM 3 with the prompt “shipping container” and it will generate precise segmentation masks for all shipping containers in an image. SAM 3 generates segmentation masks that correspond to the location of the objects found with a text prompt.
GPT-5.4 Nano vs SAM 3 Comparison Table
| Property | GPT-5.4 Nano | SAM 3 |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | OpenAI | Meta |
| Category | closed | closed |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Mar 2026 | Nov 2025 |
| Context Window | 400K | — |
| Parameters | ||
| License | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $0.200 | |
| Output $/1M | $1.25 | |
| Vision Tasks | ||
| Object Detection | Demo | Demo |
| Captioning | Demo | |
| Classification | Demo | |
| Instance Segmentation | ||
| OCR | Demo | |
| Promptable Concept Segmentation | Demo | |
| Video Object Tracking | ||
| Vision Language | ||
| Visual Question Answering | Demo | |
| Zero Shot Segmentation | ||
| Model Features | ||
| Foundation Vision | ||
| LLMs with Vision Capabilities | ||
| Multimodal Vision | ||
| Zero-shot Detection | ||
Vision Evalspass/fail results · 67 prompts Score key:≥75%40–74%<40% | ||
| Visual Understanding | ||
| Overall Score | 62.69% | |
| Avg Response Time | 3.72s | |
| Median input tokensincl. image tokens | 1.4K | |
| Median output tokens | 105 | |
| Est. cost / taskon this benchmark | $0.0004 | |
| Defect Detection | 80%(12/15) | |
| Document Understanding | 77.8%(7/9) | |
| Object Counting | 30%(3/10) | |
| Object Understanding | 64.3%(9/14) | |
| Spatial Understanding | 57.9%(11/19) | |
| OCR | ||
| Overall Score | 62.45% | |
| Avg Response Time | 2.59s | |
| Median input tokensincl. image tokens | 105 | |
| Median output tokens | 87 | |
| Est. cost / taskon this benchmark | $0.0001 | |
| Focused Scene OCR | 55.6%(55/99) | |
| Handwritten Math | 20%(2/10) | |
| License Plate Recognition | 83.3%(25/30) | |
| Text Recognition | 70%(21/30) | |
| VQA & Extraction | 66.7%(40/60) | |
Output tokens (incl. reasoning) and est. cost / task are measured on this benchmark from a single low-temperature run, and shown only for models whose run covered at least 90% of prompts. Methodology