Model comparison
GPT-4.1 nano vs o3
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); o3 #138 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. GPT-4.1 nano and o3 share 14 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 7 results are unique to GPT-4.1 nano; 2 to o3.
Updated July 24, 2026- Shared results
- 14
- GPT-4.1 nano only
- 7
- o3 only
- 2
- Comparable categories
- 1 / 8
Pick o3 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; 1 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.
Why this result
o3 is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 46.97 to 41.14. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
o3's sharpest advantage is in mathematics, where it averages 14.5 against 1. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3), 1.034% to 18.685%.
o3 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $2.00 input / $8.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.10 input / $0.40 output per 1M tokens for GPT-4.1 nano. That is roughly 20.0x on output cost alone. o3 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 o3.
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 | o3 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Math | GPT-4.1 nano1.0 | Margin→ 13.5 | o314.5 |
| Knowledge | GPT-4.1 nano50.3 | MarginNo overlap | o3Not measured |
| Inst. Following | GPT-4.1 nano83.2 | MarginNo overlap | o3Not measured |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)
MathA 1.034%B 18.685%Winner: o3Δ 17.7FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3): GPT-4.1 nano scored 1.034%; o3 scored 18.685%. o3 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 | o3 | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | GPT-4.1 nano$0.1 input / $0.4 output | o3$2 input / $8 output | GPT-4.1 nano has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | GPT-4.1 nano181 tok/s | o3118 tok/s | GPT-4.1 nano has the higher measured throughput. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | GPT-4.1 nano0.63 s | o35.38 s | GPT-4.1 nano reaches the first token sooner. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | GPT-4.1 nano1M | o3200K | GPT-4.1 nano lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic4 benchmarks
Coding2 benchmarks
Reasoning2 benchmarks
Knowledge8 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GPT-4.1 nano | o3 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMLUSource | 80.1% | — | Not comparable |
| GPQASource | 50.3% | — | Not comparable |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 9.6% | 30.4% | o3 leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 51.2% | 82.7% | o3 leads |
| AA-HLESource | 3.9% | 20.0% | o3 leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | -56.4% | -15.3% | o3 leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 13.3% | 38.4% | o3 leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 80.4% | 87.1% | GPT-4.1 nano leads |
Matho3 wins3 benchmarks
Multimodal2 benchmarks
Frequently Asked Questions (2)
Which is better, GPT-4.1 nano or o3?
o3 is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 46.97 to 41.14. The biggest single separator in this matchup is FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3), where the scores are 1.034% and 18.685%.
Which is better for math, GPT-4.1 nano or o3?
o3 has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 14.5 versus 1. Inside this category, FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3) is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.