Skip to main content

Model comparison

GPT-4.1 nano vs LFM2.5-VL-1.6B-Extract

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 12 shared benchmark results across 6 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

42.06/100
No comparison
0 category wins0 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: GPT-4.1 nano #161 (Estimated); LFM2.5-VL-1.6B-Extract unranked (Not scored). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. GPT-4.1 nano and LFM2.5-VL-1.6B-Extract share 12 comparable benchmark results. 0 of 8 categories are comparable. 9 results are unique to GPT-4.1 nano; 3 to LFM2.5-VL-1.6B-Extract.

Updated July 23, 2026
Shared results
12
GPT-4.1 nano only
9
LFM2.5-VL-1.6B-Extract only
3
Comparable categories
0 / 8

Benchmark data for GPT-4.1 nano and LFM2.5-VL-1.6B-Extract is coming soon on BenchLM.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 12 shared benchmark results across 6 evidence categories; 0 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.

Why this result

BenchLM has partial data for these models, but not enough overlapping benchmark coverage to produce a fair score-level comparison yet.

GPT-4.1 nano has the larger context window at 1M, compared with 128K for LFM2.5-VL-1.6B-Extract.

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 nano and LFM2.5-VL-1.6B-Extract
CategoryGPT-4.1 nanoΔLFM2.5-VL-1.6B-Extract
KnowledgeGPT-4.1 nano50.3MarginNo overlapLFM2.5-VL-1.6B-ExtractNot measured
MathGPT-4.1 nano1.0MarginNo overlapLFM2.5-VL-1.6B-ExtractNot measured
Inst. FollowingGPT-4.1 nano83.2MarginNo overlapLFM2.5-VL-1.6B-ExtractNot measured

Operational comparison

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

MetricGPT-4.1 nanoLFM2.5-VL-1.6B-ExtractComparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensGPT-4.1 nano$0.1 input / $0.4 outputLFM2.5-VL-1.6B-ExtractNot availableA complete price comparison is not available.
Generation speedtokens per secondGPT-4.1 nano181 tok/sLFM2.5-VL-1.6B-ExtractNot availableA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenGPT-4.1 nano0.63 sLFM2.5-VL-1.6B-ExtractNot availableA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensGPT-4.1 nano1MLFM2.5-VL-1.6B-Extract128KGPT-4.1 nano lists the larger context window.

Benchmark Deep Dive

Agentic
BenchmarkGPT-4.1 nanoLFM2.5-VL-1.6B-ExtractResult
AA Agentic IndexSource 1.2%Not comparable
τ²-bench resultsSource 17.3%8.5%GPT-4.1 nano leads
GDPval-AASource 0.0%Not comparable
GDPval-AASource 41Not comparable
Coding
BenchmarkGPT-4.1 nanoLFM2.5-VL-1.6B-ExtractResult
AA Coding IndexSource 11.1%Not comparable
AA-SciCodeSource 25.9%3.0%GPT-4.1 nano leads
Reasoning
BenchmarkGPT-4.1 nanoLFM2.5-VL-1.6B-ExtractResult
AA-LCRSource 17.0%0.0%GPT-4.1 nano leads
CritPtSource 0.0%0.0%Tie
Knowledge
BenchmarkGPT-4.1 nanoLFM2.5-VL-1.6B-ExtractResult
MMLUSource 80.1%Not comparable
GPQASource 50.3%Not comparable
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource 9.6%1.0%GPT-4.1 nano leads
AA-GPQA DiamondSource 51.2%28.9%GPT-4.1 nano leads
AA-HLESource 3.9%5.1%LFM2.5-VL-1.6B-Extract leads
AA-Omniscience IndexSource -56.4%-83.9%GPT-4.1 nano leads
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource 13.3%5.2%GPT-4.1 nano leads
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource 80.4%94.0%GPT-4.1 nano leads
Math
BenchmarkGPT-4.1 nanoLFM2.5-VL-1.6B-ExtractResult
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source 1.034%Not comparable
Multimodal
BenchmarkGPT-4.1 nanoLFM2.5-VL-1.6B-ExtractResult
AA-MMMU-ProSource 40.1%26.5%GPT-4.1 nano leads
Design Arena WebsiteSource 1003Not comparable
Liquid Extract JSON ValiditySource 99.6%Not comparable
Liquid Extract F1Source 99.6%Not comparable
Liquid Extract VLM JudgeSource 90.6%Not comparable
Inst. Following
BenchmarkGPT-4.1 nanoLFM2.5-VL-1.6B-ExtractResult
IFEvalSource 83.2%Not comparable
AA-IFBenchSource 32.0%33.1%LFM2.5-VL-1.6B-Extract leads
Frequently Asked Questions (3)

Can I compare GPT-4.1 nano and LFM2.5-VL-1.6B-Extract on BenchLM yet?

Not fully yet. BenchLM is tracking both models, but the sourced benchmark breakdown for this comparison is still coming soon.

Why does this comparison show “coming soon”?

BenchLM only shows category winners and benchmark-level calls when we have sourced results that can be compared fairly. For these models, the public benchmark coverage is not complete enough yet.

What data is available for GPT-4.1 nano and LFM2.5-VL-1.6B-Extract today?

GPT-4.1 nano: $0.10 input / $0.40 output per 1M tokens Both model pages still include creator, context window, reasoning mode, and other metadata while benchmark coverage fills in.

Related Comparisons

Last updated: July 23, 2026

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.