Head-to-head comparison across 1benchmark categories. Overall scores shown here use BenchLM's provisional ranking lane.
Gemma 4 E2B
32
GPT-4.1
56
Pick GPT-4.1 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Gemma 4 E2B only becomes the better choice if you want the cheaper token bill or you want the stronger reasoning-first profile.
Knowledge
+12.2 difference
Gemma 4 E2B
GPT-4.1
$0 / $0
$2 / $8
N/A
108 t/s
N/A
1.02s
128K
1M
Pick GPT-4.1 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Gemma 4 E2B only becomes the better choice if you want the cheaper token bill or you want the stronger reasoning-first profile.
GPT-4.1 is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 56 to 32. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
GPT-4.1's sharpest advantage is in knowledge, where it averages 66.3 against 54.1. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is GPQA, 43.4% to 66.3%.
GPT-4.1 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $2.00 input / $8.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.00 input / $0.00 output per 1M tokens for Gemma 4 E2B. That is roughly Infinityx on output cost alone. Gemma 4 E2B 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. GPT-4.1 gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 128K for Gemma 4 E2B.
GPT-4.1 is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 56 to 32. The biggest single separator in this matchup is GPQA, where the scores are 43.4% and 66.3%.
GPT-4.1 has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 66.3 versus 54.1. Inside this category, AA-Omniscience Hallucination Rate is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
For engineers, researchers, and the plain curious — a weekly brief on new models, ranking shifts, and pricing changes.
Free. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.