Skip to main content

Model comparison

GPT-4.1 mini vs o1

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 16 shared benchmark results across 6 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

43.1/100
Margin
4.0pts
winning →
OpenAI
47.14/100
0 category wins3 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: GPT-4.1 mini #160 (Estimated); o1 #136 (Estimated). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. GPT-4.1 mini and o1 share 16 comparable benchmark results. 3 of 8 categories are comparable. 6 results are unique to GPT-4.1 mini; 0 to o1.

Updated July 24, 2026
Shared results
16
GPT-4.1 mini only
6
o1 only
0
Comparable categories
3 / 8

Pick o1 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. GPT-4.1 mini 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 16 shared benchmark results across 6 evidence categories; 3 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.

Why this result

o1 is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 47.14 to 43.1. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.

o1's sharpest advantage is in knowledge, where it averages 75.7 against 64.2. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is GPQA, 64.2% to 75.7%.

o1 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $15.00 input / $60.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.40 input / $1.60 output per 1M tokens for GPT-4.1 mini. That is roughly 37.5x on output cost alone. o1 is the reasoning model in the pair, while GPT-4.1 mini 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 mini gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 200K for o1.

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 GPT-4.1 mini and o1
CategoryGPT-4.1 miniΔo1
KnowledgeGPT-4.1 mini64.2Margin 11.5o175.7
MathGPT-4.1 mini4.5Margin 4.8o19.3
Inst. FollowingGPT-4.1 mini88.5Margin 3.7o192.2
CodingGPT-4.1 mini23.6MarginNo overlapo1Not measured

Decisive benchmark drivers

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

More
A · GPT-4.1 miniB · o1
  1. GPQA

    Knowledge
    Source ↗
    A 64.2%B 75.7%
    Winner: o1Δ 11.5
    GPQA: GPT-4.1 mini scored 64.2%; o1 scored 75.7%. o1 wins this benchmark.
  2. FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)

    Math
    Source ↗
    A 4.483%B 9.310%
    Winner: o1Δ 4.8
    FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3): GPT-4.1 mini scored 4.483%; o1 scored 9.310%. o1 wins this benchmark.
  3. IFEval

    Inst. Following
    Source ↗
    A 88.5%B 92.2%
    Winner: o1Δ 3.7
    IFEval: GPT-4.1 mini scored 88.5%; o1 scored 92.2%. o1 wins this benchmark.

Operational comparison

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

MetricGPT-4.1 minio1Comparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensGPT-4.1 mini$0.4 input / $1.6 outputo1$15 input / $60 outputGPT-4.1 mini has the lower combined listed price.
Generation speedtokens per secondGPT-4.1 mini80 tok/so198 tok/so1 has the higher measured throughput.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenGPT-4.1 mini0.76 so132.29 sGPT-4.1 mini reaches the first token sooner.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensGPT-4.1 mini1Mo1200KGPT-4.1 mini lists the larger context window.

Benchmark Deep Dive

Agentic
BenchmarkGPT-4.1 minio1Result
AA Agentic IndexSource 1.7%Not comparable
τ²-bench resultsSource 52.9%62.6%o1 leads
GDPval-AASource 0.4%Not comparable
GDPval-AASource 508Not comparable
Coding
BenchmarkGPT-4.1 minio1Result
SWE-bench VerifiedSource 23.6%Not comparable
AA Coding IndexSource 20.2%39.7%o1 leads
AA-SciCodeSource 40.4%35.8%GPT-4.1 mini leads
Reasoning
BenchmarkGPT-4.1 minio1Result
AA-LCRSource 42.3%59.3%o1 leads
CritPtSource 0.0%0.3%o1 leads
Knowledgeo1 wins
BenchmarkGPT-4.1 minio1Result
MMLUSource 87.5%91.8%o1 leads
GPQASource 64.2%75.7%o1 leads
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource 14.8%23.4%o1 leads
AA-GPQA DiamondSource 66.4%74.7%o1 leads
AA-HLESource 4.6%7.7%o1 leads
AA-Omniscience IndexSource -50.1%-10.5%o1 leads
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource 17.5%34.7%o1 leads
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource 82.0%69.3%o1 leads
Matho1 wins
BenchmarkGPT-4.1 minio1Result
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source 4.483%9.310%o1 leads
Multimodal
BenchmarkGPT-4.1 minio1Result
AA-MMMU-ProSource 58.7%Not comparable
Design Arena WebsiteSource 1027Not comparable
Inst. Followingo1 wins
BenchmarkGPT-4.1 minio1Result
IFEvalSource 88.5%92.2%o1 leads
AA-IFBenchSource 38.3%70.3%o1 leads
Frequently Asked Questions (4)

Which is better, GPT-4.1 mini or o1?

o1 is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 47.14 to 43.1. The biggest single separator in this matchup is GPQA, where the scores are 64.2% and 75.7%.

Which is better for knowledge tasks, GPT-4.1 mini or o1?

o1 has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 75.7 versus 64.2. Inside this category, AA-Omniscience Index is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for math, GPT-4.1 mini or o1?

o1 has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 9.3 versus 4.5. Inside this category, FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3) is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for instruction following, GPT-4.1 mini or o1?

o1 has the edge for instruction following in this comparison, averaging 92.2 versus 88.5. Inside this category, AA-IFBench is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Related Comparisons

Last updated: July 24, 2026