Model comparison
GPT-4.1 nano vs GPT-5.2
Head-to-head evidence from 14 shared benchmark results across 7 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: GPT-4.1 nano #170 (Estimated); GPT-5.2 #70 (Estimated). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. GPT-4.1 nano and GPT-5.2 share 14 comparable benchmark results. 2 of 8 categories are comparable. 7 results are unique to GPT-4.1 nano; 14 to GPT-5.2.
Updated July 24, 2026- Shared results
- 14
- GPT-4.1 nano only
- 7
- GPT-5.2 only
- 14
- Comparable categories
- 2 / 8
Pick GPT-5.2 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. GPT-4.1 nano 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 14 shared benchmark results across 7 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
GPT-5.2 is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 57.63 to 41.14. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
GPT-5.2's sharpest advantage is in knowledge, where it averages 92.4 against 50.3. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is GPQA, 50.3% to 92.4%.
GPT-5.2 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $1.75 input / $14.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.10 input / $0.40 output per 1M tokens for GPT-4.1 nano. That is roughly 35.0x on output cost alone. GPT-5.2 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. GPT-4.1 nano gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 400K for GPT-5.2.
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 | GPT-4.1 nano | Δ | GPT-5.2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Knowledge | GPT-4.1 nano50.3 | Margin→ 42.1 | GPT-5.292.4 |
| Math | GPT-4.1 nano1.0 | Margin→ 34.2 | GPT-5.235.2 |
| Agentic | GPT-4.1 nanoNot measured | MarginNo overlap | GPT-5.255.7 |
| Coding | GPT-4.1 nanoNot measured | MarginNo overlap | GPT-5.270.6 |
| Reasoning | GPT-4.1 nanoNot measured | MarginNo overlap | GPT-5.252.9 |
| Multimodal | GPT-4.1 nanoNot measured | MarginNo overlap | GPT-5.280.4 |
| Inst. Following | GPT-4.1 nano83.2 | MarginNo overlap | GPT-5.2Not measured |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
GPQA
KnowledgeA 50.3%B 92.4%Winner: GPT-5.2Δ 42.1GPQA: GPT-4.1 nano scored 50.3%; GPT-5.2 scored 92.4%. GPT-5.2 wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)
MathA 1.034%B 40.700%Winner: GPT-5.2Δ 39.7FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3): GPT-4.1 nano scored 1.034%; GPT-5.2 scored 40.700%. GPT-5.2 wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | GPT-4.1 nano | GPT-5.2 | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | GPT-4.1 nano$0.1 input / $0.4 output | GPT-5.2$1.75 input / $14 output | GPT-4.1 nano has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | GPT-4.1 nano181 tok/s | GPT-5.273 tok/s | GPT-4.1 nano has the higher measured throughput. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | GPT-4.1 nano0.63 s | GPT-5.2130.34 s | GPT-4.1 nano reaches the first token sooner. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | GPT-4.1 nano1M | GPT-5.2400K | GPT-4.1 nano lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic8 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GPT-4.1 nano | GPT-5.2 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Agentic IndexSource | 1.2% | — | Not comparable |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | 17.3% | 84.8% | GPT-5.2 leads |
| GDPval-AASource | 0.0% | — | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | 63 | — | Not comparable |
| BrowseCompSource | — | 65.8% | Not comparable |
| OSWorld-VerifiedSource | — | 47.3% | Not comparable |
| Gert LabsSource | — | 46.54% | Not comparable |
| JobBenchSource | — | 34.3% | Not comparable |
Coding5 benchmarks
Reasoning3 benchmarks
KnowledgeGPT-5.2 wins8 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GPT-4.1 nano | GPT-5.2 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMLUSource | 80.1% | — | Not comparable |
| GPQASource | 50.3% | 92.4% | GPT-5.2 leads |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 9.6% | 42.2% | GPT-5.2 leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 51.2% | 90.3% | GPT-5.2 leads |
| AA-HLESource | 3.9% | 35.4% | GPT-5.2 leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | -56.4% | -1.0% | GPT-5.2 leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 13.3% | 43.8% | GPT-5.2 leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 80.4% | 79.7% | GPT-5.2 leads |
MathGPT-5.2 wins3 benchmarks
Multimodal6 benchmarks
Frequently Asked Questions (3)
Which is better, GPT-4.1 nano or GPT-5.2?
GPT-5.2 is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 57.63 to 41.14. The biggest single separator in this matchup is GPQA, where the scores are 50.3% and 92.4%.
Which is better for knowledge tasks, GPT-4.1 nano or GPT-5.2?
GPT-5.2 has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 92.4 versus 50.3. Inside this category, AA-Omniscience Index is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for math, GPT-4.1 nano or GPT-5.2?
GPT-5.2 has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 35.2 versus 1. Inside this category, FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3) is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.