Greptile AI Code Review Tool - Automated GitHub PR Review Bot with Full Codebase Understanding
OpenAI 4o vs. 4o-mini: Which AI Model Is Better at Catching Hard Bugs?

OpenAI 4o vs. 4o-mini: Which AI Model Is Better at Catching Hard Bugs?

April 29, 2025 (2w ago)

Written by Everett Butler

Introduction

AI-driven bug detection has advanced significantly with recent improvements in Large Language Models (LLMs). Yet, catching subtle, complex bugs—those lurking deep within intricate logic—is still a tougher challenge than code generation itself.

In this post, I evaluate and compare two models from OpenAI: 4o and its reasoning-focused counterpart, 4o-mini, to understand their strengths at identifying these challenging bugs across multiple programming languages.

The Evaluation Dataset

I wanted to have the dataset of bugs to cover multiple domains and languages. I picked sixteen domains, picked 2-3 self-contained programs for each domain, and used Cursor to generate each program in TypeScript, Ruby, Python, Go, and Rust.

ID

1distributed microservices platform
2event-driven simulation engine
3containerized development environment manager
4natural language processing toolkit
5predictive anomaly detection system
6decentralized voting platform
7smart contract development framework
8custom peer-to-peer network protocol
9real-time collaboration platform
10progressive web app framework
11webassembly compiler and runtime
12serverless orchestration platform
13procedural world generation engine
14ai-powered game testing framework
15multiplayer game networking engine
16big data processing framework
17real-time data visualization platform
18machine learning model monitoring system
19advanced encryption toolkit
20penetration testing automation framework
21iot device management platform
22edge computing framework
23smart home automation system
24quantum computing simulation environment
25bioinformatics analysis toolkit
26climate modeling and simulation platform
27advanced code generation ai
28automated code refactoring tool
29comprehensive developer productivity suite
30algorithmic trading platform
31blockchain-based supply chain tracker
32personal finance management ai
33advanced audio processing library
34immersive virtual reality development framework
35serverless computing optimizer
36distributed machine learning training framework
37robotic process automation rpa platform
38adaptive learning management system
39interactive coding education platform
40language learning ai tutor
41comprehensive personal assistant framework
42multiplayer collaboration platform

Next I cycled through and introduced a tiny bug in each one. The type of bug I chose to introduce had to be:

  1. A bug that a professional developer could reasonably introduce
  2. A bug that could easily slip through linters, tests, and manual code review

Some examples of bugs I introduced:

  1. Undefined `response` variable in the ensure block
  2. Not accounting for amplitude normalization when computing wave stretching on a sound sample
  3. Hard coded date which would be accurate in most, but not all situations

At the end of this, I had 210 programs, each with a small, difficult-to-catch, and realistic bug.

A disclaimer: these bugs are the hardest-to-catch bugs I could think of, and are not representative of the median bugs usually found in everyday software.

Results

After testing the models on 210 intentionally difficult-to-catch bugs across Python, TypeScript, Go, Rust, and Ruby, the results were insightful:

  • Overall Performance: OpenAI 4o identified 19 out of 210 bugs, whereas OpenAI 4o-mini found 20 out of 210. While modest, these results highlight both the difficulty of the task and the subtle advantage of reasoning capabilities.

Breaking it down by language:

  • Python: OpenAI 4o slightly outperformed 4o-mini (6 vs. 4 bugs detected). Python’s widespread use and abundant training data likely helped both models detect common asynchronous patterns.

  • TypeScript: OpenAI 4o again had a slight edge, catching 4 bugs versus 4o-mini’s 2. TypeScript’s strong typing likely supported the pattern-recognition strengths of the larger model.

  • Go: Performance was closely matched, with OpenAI 4o detecting 4 bugs and 4o-mini finding 3.

  • Rust: Interestingly, OpenAI 4o-mini marginally outperformed 4o (4 vs. 3 bugs), highlighting that reasoning may offer slight advantages in Rust’s safety-focused environment.

  • Ruby: The most notable difference emerged in Ruby, where OpenAI 4o-mini detected twice as many bugs (6) compared to 4o’s (3). Ruby’s dynamic nature and complexity significantly favored 4o-mini’s reasoning approach.

Why Reasoning Matters for Bug Detection

The slight overall advantage of OpenAI 4o-mini, especially pronounced in Ruby, underscores a crucial insight: reasoning or "thinking" steps appear especially valuable for dynamically-typed languages and environments lacking clear, authoritative training data.

For widely-used languages like Python and TypeScript, both models showed competence due to extensive pattern-matching capabilities. However, less popular languages such as Ruby and Rust benefited notably from the reasoning approach of 4o-mini, suggesting underrepresentation in general LLM training data.

Example of an Interesting Bug

Here's a notable example from our dataset illustrating why reasoning can make a difference:

Bug: In an audio processing library written in Ruby, the TimeStretchProcessor class incorrectly calculated the normalize_gain. Instead of scaling based on the stretch_factor, it used a fixed formula, causing amplitude errors—either too loud or too quiet audio outputs.

  • OpenAI 4o-mini: Successfully caught this subtle logical error by explicitly reasoning through the audio stretching logic.
  • OpenAI 4o: Missed this bug, likely due to reliance on pattern detection rather than logical reasoning.

This instance highlights how critical logical reasoning is for identifying nuanced, dynamic bugs.

Final Thoughts

While the numerical differences between OpenAI 4o and 4o-mini might seem minimal, their implications for software verification are substantial. The growing importance of AI-powered reasoning models is clear, especially for dynamically-typed or less mainstream languages.

As AI continues to advance, comparative evaluations like these help refine our expectations and guide improvements in AI-driven bug detection tools. Ultimately, reasoning capabilities may prove essential for delivering safer, more reliable software.

Interested in AI-powered code reviews? Try Greptile for free—catch bugs earlier and ship safer code.


TRY GREPTILE TODAY

AI code reviewer that understands your codebase.

Merge 50-80% faster, catch up to 3X more bugs.

14-days free, no credit card required