Model comparison
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite vs GPT-4.1
Head-to-head evidence from 10 shared benchmark results across 4 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite unranked (Not scored); GPT-4.1 #108 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite and GPT-4.1 share 10 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 11 results are unique to Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite; 10 to GPT-4.1.
Updated July 21, 2026- Shared results
- 10
- Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite only
- 11
- GPT-4.1 only
- 10
- Comparable categories
- 1 / 8
Treat this as a split decision. Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite makes more sense if you want the cheaper token bill or you want the stronger reasoning-first profile; GPT-4.1 is the better fit if coding is the priority or you would rather avoid the extra latency and token burn of a reasoning model.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 10 shared benchmark results across 4 evidence categories; 1 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.
Why this result
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite and GPT-4.1 finish on the same BenchAlign overall score, so this is less about a single winner and more about where the edge shows up. The BenchAlign headline says tie; the benchmark table is where the real choice happens.
GPT-4.1 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $2.00 input / $8.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.30 input / $2.50 output per 1M tokens for Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite. That is roughly 3.2x on output cost alone. Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite is the reasoning model in the pair, while GPT-4.1 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 | Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite | Δ | GPT-4.1 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite54.2 | Margin→ 0.4 | GPT-4.154.6 |
| Agentic | Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite63.4 | MarginNo overlap | GPT-4.1Not measured |
| Reasoning | Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite72.2 | MarginNo overlap | GPT-4.1Not measured |
| Knowledge | Gemini 3.5 Flash-LiteNot measured | MarginNo overlap | GPT-4.166.3 |
| Math | Gemini 3.5 Flash-LiteNot measured | MarginNo overlap | GPT-4.14.1 |
| Inst. Following | Gemini 3.5 Flash-LiteNot measured | MarginNo overlap | GPT-4.187.4 |
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite | GPT-4.1 | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite$0.3 input / $2.5 output | GPT-4.1$2 input / $8 output | Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Gemini 3.5 Flash-LiteNot available | GPT-4.1108 tok/s | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Gemini 3.5 Flash-LiteNot available | GPT-4.11.02 s | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite1M | GPT-4.11M | Listed context windows are equal. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic9 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite | GPT-4.1 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 54% | — | Not comparable |
| OSWorld-VerifiedSource | 74% | — | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | 1140 | — | Not comparable |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | 26.8% | — | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | 32.0% | — | Not comparable |
| AA BriefcaseSource | 634 | — | Not comparable |
| AA Tau3 BankingSource | 16.5% | — | Not comparable |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | — | 47.1% | Not comparable |
| Gert LabsSource | — | 25.65% | Not comparable |
CodingGPT-4.1 wins5 benchmarks
Reasoning3 benchmarks
Knowledge8 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite | GPT-4.1 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 36.5% | 19.4% | Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 83.8% | 66.6% | Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite leads |
| AA-HLESource | 17.5% | 4.6% | Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | 6.9% | -36.2% | Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 30.3% | 24.2% | Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 33.5% | 79.6% | Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite leads |
| MMLUSource | — | 90.2% | Not comparable |
| GPQASource | — | 66.3% | Not comparable |
Math2 benchmarks
Multimodal2 benchmarks
Frequently Asked Questions (2)
Which is better, Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite or GPT-4.1?
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite and GPT-4.1 are tied on the BenchAlign overall score, so the right pick depends on which category matters most for your use case.
Which is better for coding, Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite or GPT-4.1?
GPT-4.1 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 54.6 versus 54.2. Inside this category, AA-SciCode is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
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.