Model comparison
DeepSeek V4 Pro vs GPT-4.1 nano
Head-to-head evidence from 2 shared benchmark results across 2 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: DeepSeek V4 Pro #46 (Supported); GPT-4.1 nano #161 (Estimated). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. DeepSeek V4 Pro and GPT-4.1 nano share 2 comparable benchmark results. 2 of 8 categories are comparable. 21 results are unique to DeepSeek V4 Pro; 19 to GPT-4.1 nano.
Updated July 23, 2026- Shared results
- 2
- DeepSeek V4 Pro only
- 21
- GPT-4.1 nano only
- 19
- Comparable categories
- 2 / 8
Pick DeepSeek V4 Pro if you want the stronger benchmark profile. GPT-4.1 nano only becomes the better choice if knowledge is the priority or you want the cheaper token bill.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 2 shared benchmark results across 2 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 Pro is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 60.66 to 42.06. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
DeepSeek V4 Pro's sharpest advantage is in mathematics, where it averages 31.7 against 1. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is GPQA, 72.9% to 50.3%. GPT-4.1 nano does hit back in knowledge, so the answer changes if that is the part of the workload you care about most.
DeepSeek V4 Pro is also the more expensive model on tokens at $0.43 input / $0.87 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.10 input / $0.40 output per 1M tokens for GPT-4.1 nano. That is roughly 2.2x on output cost alone.
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 | DeepSeek V4 Pro | Δ | GPT-4.1 nano |
|---|---|---|---|
| Math | DeepSeek V4 Pro31.7 | Margin← 30.7 | GPT-4.1 nano1.0 |
| Knowledge | DeepSeek V4 Pro41.3 | Margin→ 9.0 | GPT-4.1 nano50.3 |
| Agentic | DeepSeek V4 Pro59.1 | MarginNo overlap | GPT-4.1 nanoNot measured |
| Coding | DeepSeek V4 Pro65.3 | MarginNo overlap | GPT-4.1 nanoNot measured |
| Inst. Following | DeepSeek V4 ProNot measured | MarginNo overlap | GPT-4.1 nano83.2 |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
GPQA
KnowledgeA 72.9%B 50.3%Winner: DeepSeek V4 ProΔ 22.6GPQA: DeepSeek V4 Pro scored 72.9%; GPT-4.1 nano scored 50.3%. DeepSeek V4 Pro wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | DeepSeek V4 Pro | GPT-4.1 nano | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | DeepSeek V4 Pro$0.435 input / $0.87 output | GPT-4.1 nano$0.1 input / $0.4 output | GPT-4.1 nano has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | DeepSeek V4 ProNot available | GPT-4.1 nano181 tok/s | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | DeepSeek V4 ProNot available | GPT-4.1 nano0.63 s | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | DeepSeek V4 Pro1M | GPT-4.1 nano1M | Listed context windows are equal. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic10 benchmarks
| Benchmark | DeepSeek V4 Pro | GPT-4.1 nano | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 59.1% | — | Not comparable |
| MCP AtlasSource | 69.4% | — | Not comparable |
| ToolathlonSource | 46.3% | — | Not comparable |
| Claw-EvalSource | 59.8% | — | Not comparable |
| Gert LabsSource | 50.28% | — | Not comparable |
| ResearchClawBenchSource | 17.1% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | — | 1.2% | Not comparable |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | — | 17.3% | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | — | 0.0% | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | — | 41 | Not comparable |
Coding6 benchmarks
Reasoning4 benchmarks
KnowledgeGPT-4.1 nano wins13 benchmarks
| Benchmark | DeepSeek V4 Pro | GPT-4.1 nano | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMLU-ProSource | 82.9% | — | Not comparable |
| SimpleQASource | 45% | — | Not comparable |
| Chinese-SimpleQASource | 75.8% | — | Not comparable |
| GPQASource | 72.9% | 50.3% | DeepSeek V4 Pro leads |
| GPQA-DSource | 72.9% | — | Not comparable |
| HLESource | 7.7% | — | Not comparable |
| MMLUSource | — | 80.1% | Not comparable |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | — | 9.6% | Not comparable |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | — | 51.2% | Not comparable |
| AA-HLESource | — | 3.9% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | — | -56.4% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | — | 13.3% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | — | 80.4% | Not comparable |
MathDeepSeek V4 Pro wins5 benchmarks
Multimodal2 benchmarks
Frequently Asked Questions (3)
Which is better, DeepSeek V4 Pro or GPT-4.1 nano?
DeepSeek V4 Pro is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 60.66 to 42.06. The biggest single separator in this matchup is GPQA, where the scores are 72.9% and 50.3%.
Which is better for knowledge tasks, DeepSeek V4 Pro or GPT-4.1 nano?
GPT-4.1 nano has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 50.3 versus 41.3. Inside this category, GPQA is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for math, DeepSeek V4 Pro or GPT-4.1 nano?
DeepSeek V4 Pro has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 31.7 versus 1. GPT-4.1 nano stays close enough that the answer can still flip depending on your workload.
Related Comparisons
Explore More
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.