Skip to main content

Model comparison

DeepSeek V4 Flash (High) vs GPT-4.1 nano

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 17 shared benchmark results across 6 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

53.95/100
Margin
11.9pts
← winning
42.06/100
2 category wins0 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: DeepSeek V4 Flash (High) #92 (Estimated); GPT-4.1 nano #161 (Estimated). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. DeepSeek V4 Flash (High) and GPT-4.1 nano share 17 comparable benchmark results. 2 of 8 categories are comparable. 21 results are unique to DeepSeek V4 Flash (High); 4 to GPT-4.1 nano.

Updated July 23, 2026
Shared results
17
DeepSeek V4 Flash (High) only
21
GPT-4.1 nano only
4
Comparable categories
2 / 8

Pick DeepSeek V4 Flash (High) if you want the stronger benchmark profile. GPT-4.1 nano only becomes the better choice if you would rather avoid the extra latency and token burn of a reasoning model.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 17 shared benchmark results across 6 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

DeepSeek V4 Flash (High) is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 53.95 to 42.06. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.

DeepSeek V4 Flash (High)'s sharpest advantage is in mathematics, where it averages 91.9 against 1. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is GPQA, 87.4% to 50.3%.

GPT-4.1 nano is also the more expensive model on tokens at $0.10 input / $0.40 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.14 input / $0.28 output per 1M tokens for DeepSeek V4 Flash (High). DeepSeek V4 Flash (High) is the reasoning model in the pair, while GPT-4.1 nano is not. That usually helps on harder chain-of-thought-heavy tests, but it can also mean more latency and more token spend in real use.

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 DeepSeek V4 Flash (High) and GPT-4.1 nano
CategoryDeepSeek V4 Flash (High)ΔGPT-4.1 nano
MathDeepSeek V4 Flash (High)91.9Margin 90.9GPT-4.1 nano1.0
KnowledgeDeepSeek V4 Flash (High)52.1Margin 1.8GPT-4.1 nano50.3
AgenticDeepSeek V4 Flash (High)55.3MarginNo overlapGPT-4.1 nanoNot measured
CodingDeepSeek V4 Flash (High)68.5MarginNo overlapGPT-4.1 nanoNot measured
Inst. FollowingDeepSeek V4 Flash (High)Not measuredMarginNo overlapGPT-4.1 nano83.2

Decisive benchmark drivers

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

More
A · DeepSeek V4 Flash (High)B · GPT-4.1 nano
  1. GPQA

    Knowledge
    Source ↗
    A 87.4%B 50.3%
    Winner: DeepSeek V4 Flash (High)Δ 37.1
    GPQA: DeepSeek V4 Flash (High) scored 87.4%; GPT-4.1 nano scored 50.3%. DeepSeek V4 Flash (High) wins this benchmark.

Operational comparison

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

MetricDeepSeek V4 Flash (High)GPT-4.1 nanoComparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensDeepSeek V4 Flash (High)$0.14 input / $0.28 outputGPT-4.1 nano$0.1 input / $0.4 outputDeepSeek V4 Flash (High) has the lower combined listed price.
Generation speedtokens per secondDeepSeek V4 Flash (High)Not availableGPT-4.1 nano181 tok/sA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenDeepSeek V4 Flash (High)Not availableGPT-4.1 nano0.63 sA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensDeepSeek V4 Flash (High)1MGPT-4.1 nano1MListed context windows are equal.

Benchmark Deep Dive

Agentic
BenchmarkDeepSeek V4 Flash (High)GPT-4.1 nanoResult
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 56.6%Not comparable
BrowseCompSource 53.5%Not comparable
HLE w/ toolsSource 40.3%Not comparable
MCP AtlasSource 67.4%Not comparable
ToolathlonSource 43.5%Not comparable
τ²-bench resultsSource 95.6%17.3%DeepSeek V4 Flash (High) leads
AA Agentic IndexSource 28.2%1.2%DeepSeek V4 Flash (High) leads
GDPval-AASource 32.4%0.0%DeepSeek V4 Flash (High) leads
GDPval-AASource 114741DeepSeek V4 Flash (High) leads
Coding
BenchmarkDeepSeek V4 Flash (High)GPT-4.1 nanoResult
CodeforcesSource 2816.0Not comparable
SWE-bench VerifiedSource 78.6%Not comparable
SWE-bench ProSource 52.3%Not comparable
SWE MultilingualSource 70.2%Not comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 56.6%Not comparable
AA-SciCodeSource 42.0%25.9%DeepSeek V4 Flash (High) leads
AA Coding IndexSource 52.0%11.1%DeepSeek V4 Flash (High) leads
Reasoning
BenchmarkDeepSeek V4 Flash (High)GPT-4.1 nanoResult
MRCR 1MSource 76.9%Not comparable
CorpusQA 1MSource 59.3%Not comparable
AA-LCRSource 62.7%17.0%DeepSeek V4 Flash (High) leads
CritPtSource 3.4%0.0%DeepSeek V4 Flash (High) leads
KnowledgeDeepSeek V4 Flash (High) wins
BenchmarkDeepSeek V4 Flash (High)GPT-4.1 nanoResult
MMLU-ProSource 86.4%Not comparable
SimpleQASource 28.9%Not comparable
Chinese-SimpleQASource 73.2%Not comparable
GPQASource 87.4%50.3%DeepSeek V4 Flash (High) leads
GPQA-DSource 87.4%Not comparable
HLESource 29.4%Not comparable
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource 37.5%9.6%DeepSeek V4 Flash (High) leads
AA-GPQA DiamondSource 86.7%51.2%DeepSeek V4 Flash (High) leads
AA-HLESource 27.8%3.9%DeepSeek V4 Flash (High) leads
AA-Omniscience IndexSource -22.3%-56.4%DeepSeek V4 Flash (High) leads
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource 35.5%13.3%DeepSeek V4 Flash (High) leads
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource 89.7%80.4%GPT-4.1 nano leads
MMLUSource 80.1%Not comparable
MathDeepSeek V4 Flash (High) wins
BenchmarkDeepSeek V4 Flash (High)GPT-4.1 nanoResult
HMMT Feb 2026Source 91.9%Not comparable
IMOAnswerBenchSource 85.1%Not comparable
ApexSource 19.1%Not comparable
Apex ShortlistSource 72.1%Not comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source 1.034%Not comparable
Multimodal
BenchmarkDeepSeek V4 Flash (High)GPT-4.1 nanoResult
Design Arena WebsiteSource 12381003DeepSeek V4 Flash (High) leads
AA-MMMU-ProSource 40.1%Not comparable
Inst. Following
BenchmarkDeepSeek V4 Flash (High)GPT-4.1 nanoResult
AA-IFBenchSource 73.5%32.0%DeepSeek V4 Flash (High) leads
IFEvalSource 83.2%Not comparable
Frequently Asked Questions (3)

Which is better, DeepSeek V4 Flash (High) or GPT-4.1 nano?

DeepSeek V4 Flash (High) is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 53.95 to 42.06. The biggest single separator in this matchup is GPQA, where the scores are 87.4% and 50.3%.

Which is better for knowledge tasks, DeepSeek V4 Flash (High) or GPT-4.1 nano?

DeepSeek V4 Flash (High) has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 52.1 versus 50.3. Inside this category, GPQA is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for math, DeepSeek V4 Flash (High) or GPT-4.1 nano?

DeepSeek V4 Flash (High) has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 91.9 versus 1. GPT-4.1 nano stays close enough that the answer can still flip depending on your workload.

Related Comparisons

Last updated: July 23, 2026

Choose a model with this week’s evidence

Join 2,000+ readers for ranking moves, pricing changes, and the claims that still need proof.

One email each week. Unsubscribe anytime.