Model comparison
GPT-4.1 nano vs Inkling
Head-to-head evidence from 1 shared benchmark result across 1 category. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Verified leaderboard positions: GPT-4.1 nano unranked; Inkling #17
BenchAlign evidence: GPT-4.1 nano estimated; Inkling not scored. Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. GPT-4.1 nano and Inkling share 1 comparable benchmark result. 3 of 8 categories are comparable. 21 results are unique to GPT-4.1 nano; 15 to Inkling.
Updated July 15, 2026- Shared results
- 1
- GPT-4.1 nano only
- 21
- Inkling only
- 15
- Comparable categories
- 3 / 8
Pick Inkling if you want the stronger benchmark profile. GPT-4.1 nano only becomes the better choice if instruction following is the priority or you want the cheaper token bill.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 1 shared benchmark result across 1 evidence category; 3 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.
Why this result
Inkling is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 69 to 30. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
Inkling's sharpest advantage is in mathematics, where it averages 97.1 against 1. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is GPQA, 50.3% to 87.9%. GPT-4.1 nano does hit back in instruction following, so the answer changes if that is the part of the workload you care about most.
Inkling is also the more expensive model on tokens at $1.87 input / $4.68 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.10 input / $0.40 output per 1M tokens for GPT-4.1 nano. That is roughly 11.7x on output cost alone. Inkling 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.
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 | Inkling |
|---|---|---|---|
| Math | GPT-4.1 nano1.0 | Margin→ 96.1 | Inkling97.1 |
| Inst. Following | GPT-4.1 nano83.2 | Margin← 3.4 | Inkling79.8 |
| Knowledge | GPT-4.1 nano50.3 | Margin→ 1.4 | Inkling51.7 |
| Agentic | GPT-4.1 nanoNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Inkling69.4 |
| Coding | GPT-4.1 nanoNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Inkling68.6 |
| Multimodal | GPT-4.1 nanoNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Inkling76.5 |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
GPQA
KnowledgeA 50.3%B 87.9%Winner: InklingΔ 37.6GPQA: GPT-4.1 nano scored 50.3%; Inkling scored 87.9%. Inkling 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 | Inkling | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | GPT-4.1 nano$0.1 input / $0.4 output | Inkling$1.87 input / $4.68 output | GPT-4.1 nano has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | GPT-4.1 nano181 tok/s | InklingNot available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | GPT-4.1 nano0.63 s | InklingNot available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | GPT-4.1 nano1M | Inkling1M | Listed context windows are equal. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic8 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GPT-4.1 nano | Inkling | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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 |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | — | 63.8% | Not comparable |
| BrowseCompSource | — | 77.1% | Not comparable |
| MCP AtlasSource | — | 74.1% | Not comparable |
| Design Arena Agentic Web DevSource | — | 1258 | Not comparable |
Coding6 benchmarks
Reasoning2 benchmarks
KnowledgeInkling wins11 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GPT-4.1 nano | Inkling | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMLUSource | 80.1% | — | Not comparable |
| GPQASource | 50.3% | 87.9% | Inkling leads |
| 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 |
| GPQA-DSource | — | 87.9% | Not comparable |
| HLESource | — | 46% | Not comparable |
| HLE w/o toolsSource | — | 30% | Not comparable |
MathInkling wins2 benchmarks
Multimodal5 benchmarks
Frequently Asked Questions (4)
Which is better, GPT-4.1 nano or Inkling?
Inkling is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 69 to 30. The biggest single separator in this matchup is GPQA, where the scores are 50.3% and 87.9%.
Which is better for knowledge tasks, GPT-4.1 nano or Inkling?
Inkling has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 51.7 versus 50.3. Inside this category, GPQA is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for math, GPT-4.1 nano or Inkling?
Inkling has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 97.1 versus 1. GPT-4.1 nano stays close enough that the answer can still flip depending on your workload.
Which is better for instruction following, GPT-4.1 nano or Inkling?
GPT-4.1 nano has the edge for instruction following in this comparison, averaging 83.2 versus 79.8. Inkling stays close enough that the answer can still flip depending on your workload.
Related Comparisons
Explore More
The AI models change fast. We track them for you.
A weekly brief for engineers and researchers covering new models, ranking shifts, and pricing changes.
Free. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.