Skip to main content
BenchLM
Advertise

Model comparison

Claude Sonnet 4.6 vs GPT-4.1 nano

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 15 shared benchmark results across 7 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

64.3/100
Margin
23.2pts
← winning
41.1/100
2 category wins0 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: Claude Sonnet 4.6 #35 (Supported); GPT-4.1 nano #170 (Estimated). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. Claude Sonnet 4.6 and GPT-4.1 nano share 15 comparable benchmark results. 2 of 8 categories are comparable. 18 results are unique to Claude Sonnet 4.6; 6 to GPT-4.1 nano.

Updated July 28, 2026
Shared results
15
Claude Sonnet 4.6 only
18
GPT-4.1 nano only
6
Comparable categories
2 / 8

Pick Claude Sonnet 4.6 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. GPT-4.1 nano only becomes the better choice if you want the cheaper token bill or you need the larger 1M context window.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 15 shared benchmark results across 7 evidence categories; 2 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.

Why this result

Claude Sonnet 4.6 is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 64.3 to 41.1. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.

Claude Sonnet 4.6's sharpest advantage is in mathematics, where it averages 26.4 against 1. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is GPQA, 89.9% to 50.3%.

Claude Sonnet 4.6 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $3.00 input / $15.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.10 input / $0.40 output per 1M tokens for GPT-4.1 nano. That is roughly 37.5x on output cost alone. GPT-4.1 nano gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 200K for Claude Sonnet 4.6.

Category breakdown

Exact category averages are shown below. Not measured means BenchLM does not have enough sourced public coverage for that model and category.

Category scores and score margins for Claude Sonnet 4.6 and GPT-4.1 nano
CategoryClaude Sonnet 4.6ΔGPT-4.1 nano
MathClaude Sonnet 4.626.4Margin← 25.4GPT-4.1 nano1.0
KnowledgeClaude Sonnet 4.666.0Margin← 15.7GPT-4.1 nano50.3
AgenticClaude Sonnet 4.665.2MarginNo overlapGPT-4.1 nanoNot measured
CodingClaude Sonnet 4.669.1MarginNo overlapGPT-4.1 nanoNot measured
MultimodalClaude Sonnet 4.677.4MarginNo overlapGPT-4.1 nanoNot measured
Inst. FollowingClaude Sonnet 4.6Not measuredMarginNo overlapGPT-4.1 nano83.2

Decisive benchmark drivers

The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.

More
A · Claude Sonnet 4.6B · GPT-4.1 nano

  1. GPQA

    Knowledge
    Source ↗
    A 89.9%B 50.3%
    Winner: Claude Sonnet 4.6Δ 39.6
    GPQA: Claude Sonnet 4.6 scored 89.9%; GPT-4.1 nano scored 50.3%. Claude Sonnet 4.6 wins this benchmark.

  2. FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)

    Math
    Source ↗
    A 32.400%B 1.034%
    Winner: Claude Sonnet 4.6Δ 31.4
    FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3): Claude Sonnet 4.6 scored 32.400%; GPT-4.1 nano scored 1.034%. Claude Sonnet 4.6 wins this benchmark.

Operational comparison

Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.

MetricClaude Sonnet 4.6GPT-4.1 nanoComparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensClaude Sonnet 4.6$3 input / $15 outputGPT-4.1 nano$0.1 input / $0.4 outputGPT-4.1 nano has the lower combined listed price.
Generation speedtokens per secondClaude Sonnet 4.644 tok/sGPT-4.1 nano181 tok/sGPT-4.1 nano has the higher measured throughput.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenClaude Sonnet 4.61.48 sGPT-4.1 nano0.63 sGPT-4.1 nano reaches the first token sooner.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensClaude Sonnet 4.6200KGPT-4.1 nano1MGPT-4.1 nano lists the larger context window.

Benchmark Deep Dive

Agentic
BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 4.6GPT-4.1 nanoResult
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 59.1%—Not comparable
OSWorld-VerifiedSource 72.1%—Not comparable
Claw-EvalSource 67.8%—Not comparable
CyberGymSource 65.2%—Not comparable
τ²-bench resultsSource 79.5%17.3%Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads
Gert LabsSource 62.92%—Not comparable
OSWorld 2.0Source 8.3%—Not comparable
JobBenchSource 36.9%—Not comparable
AA Agentic IndexSource —1.2%Not comparable
GDPval-AASource —0.0%Not comparable
GDPval-AASource —63Not comparable
Coding
BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 4.6GPT-4.1 nanoResult
SWE-bench VerifiedSource 79.6%—Not comparable
SWE-RebenchSource 60.7%—Not comparable
React Native EvalsSource 80.6%—Not comparable
Vibe Code BenchSource 51.48%—Not comparable
cursorBench31Source 48.8%—Not comparable
AA-SciCodeSource 46.9%25.9%Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads
FrontierCode 1.1 MainSource 24.3%—Not comparable
AA Coding IndexSource —11.1%Not comparable
Reasoning
BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 4.6GPT-4.1 nanoResult
AA-LCRSource 57.7%17.0%Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads
CritPtSource 0.9%0.0%Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads
KnowledgeClaude Sonnet 4.6 wins
BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 4.6GPT-4.1 nanoResult
GPQASource 89.9%50.3%Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads
SuperGPQASource 95%—Not comparable
MMLU-ProSource 79.2%—Not comparable
HLESource 49%—Not comparable
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource 35.9%9.6%Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads
AA-GPQA DiamondSource 79.9%51.2%Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads
AA-HLESource 13.2%3.9%Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads
AA-Omniscience IndexSource -2.9%-56.4%Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource 38.0%13.3%Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource 65.9%80.4%Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads
MMLUSource —80.1%Not comparable
MathClaude Sonnet 4.6 wins
BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 4.6GPT-4.1 nanoResult
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source 32.400%1.034%Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source 8.300%—Not comparable
Multimodal
BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 4.6GPT-4.1 nanoResult
CharXivSource 77.4%—Not comparable
AA-MMMU-ProSource 70.6%40.1%Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads
Design Arena WebsiteSource 1310998Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads
Inst. Following
BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 4.6GPT-4.1 nanoResult
AA-IFBenchSource 41.2%32.0%Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads
IFEvalSource —83.2%Not comparable
Frequently Asked Questions (3)

Which is better, Claude Sonnet 4.6 or GPT-4.1 nano?

Claude Sonnet 4.6 is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 64.3 to 41.1. The biggest single separator in this matchup is GPQA, where the scores are 89.9% and 50.3%.

Which is better for knowledge tasks, Claude Sonnet 4.6 or GPT-4.1 nano?

Claude Sonnet 4.6 has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 66 versus 50.3. Inside this category, AA-Omniscience Index is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for math, Claude Sonnet 4.6 or GPT-4.1 nano?

Claude Sonnet 4.6 has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 26.4 versus 1. Inside this category, FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3) is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Related Comparisons

Explore More

Anthropic Compare Pricing Methodology Find Your Best LLM Overall Rankings
Last updated: July 28, 2026

Know when it’s worth switching models

The model to choose, the cheaper alternative, and the release we would wait on.

One email each week. Unsubscribe anytime.