Model comparison
GPT-4.1 nano vs o1
Head-to-head evidence from 16 shared benchmark results across 6 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: GPT-4.1 nano #170 (Estimated); o1 #136 (Estimated). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. GPT-4.1 nano and o1 share 16 comparable benchmark results. 3 of 8 categories are comparable. 5 results are unique to GPT-4.1 nano; 0 to o1.
Updated July 24, 2026- Shared results
- 16
- GPT-4.1 nano only
- 5
- o1 only
- 0
- Comparable categories
- 3 / 8
Pick o1 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 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 41.14. 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 50.3. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is GPQA, 50.3% to 75.7%.
o1 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $15.00 input / $60.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.10 input / $0.40 output per 1M tokens for GPT-4.1 nano. That is roughly 150.0x on output cost alone. o1 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 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 | GPT-4.1 nano | Δ | o1 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Knowledge | GPT-4.1 nano50.3 | Margin→ 25.4 | o175.7 |
| Inst. Following | GPT-4.1 nano83.2 | Margin→ 9.0 | o192.2 |
| Math | GPT-4.1 nano1.0 | Margin→ 8.3 | o19.3 |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
GPQA
KnowledgeA 50.3%B 75.7%Winner: o1Δ 25.4GPQA: GPT-4.1 nano scored 50.3%; o1 scored 75.7%. o1 wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
IFEval
Inst. FollowingA 83.2%B 92.2%Winner: o1Δ 9IFEval: GPT-4.1 nano scored 83.2%; o1 scored 92.2%. o1 wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)
MathA 1.034%B 9.310%Winner: o1Δ 8.3FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3): GPT-4.1 nano scored 1.034%; o1 scored 9.310%. o1 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 | o1 | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | GPT-4.1 nano$0.1 input / $0.4 output | o1$15 input / $60 output | GPT-4.1 nano has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | GPT-4.1 nano181 tok/s | o198 tok/s | GPT-4.1 nano has the higher measured throughput. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | GPT-4.1 nano0.63 s | o132.29 s | GPT-4.1 nano reaches the first token sooner. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | GPT-4.1 nano1M | o1200K | GPT-4.1 nano lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic4 benchmarks
Coding2 benchmarks
Reasoning2 benchmarks
Knowledgeo1 wins8 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GPT-4.1 nano | o1 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMLUSource | 80.1% | 91.8% | o1 leads |
| GPQASource | 50.3% | 75.7% | o1 leads |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 9.6% | 23.4% | o1 leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 51.2% | 74.7% | o1 leads |
| AA-HLESource | 3.9% | 7.7% | o1 leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | -56.4% | -10.5% | o1 leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 13.3% | 34.7% | o1 leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 80.4% | 69.3% | o1 leads |
Matho1 wins1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GPT-4.1 nano | o1 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source | 1.034% | 9.310% | o1 leads |
Multimodal2 benchmarks
Frequently Asked Questions (4)
Which is better, GPT-4.1 nano or o1?
o1 is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 47.14 to 41.14. The biggest single separator in this matchup is GPQA, where the scores are 50.3% and 75.7%.
Which is better for knowledge tasks, GPT-4.1 nano or o1?
o1 has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 75.7 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 o1?
o1 has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 9.3 versus 1. 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 nano or o1?
o1 has the edge for instruction following in this comparison, averaging 92.2 versus 83.2. Inside this category, AA-IFBench is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.