Skip to main content

Model comparison

GPT-4.1 nano vs o4-mini (high)

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 1 shared benchmark result across 1 category. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

41.14/100
Margin
8.0pts
winning →
49.19/100
0 category wins1 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: GPT-4.1 nano #170 (Estimated); o4-mini (high) #123 (Estimated). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. GPT-4.1 nano and o4-mini (high) share 1 comparable benchmark result. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 20 results are unique to GPT-4.1 nano; 1 to o4-mini (high).

Updated July 24, 2026
Shared results
1
GPT-4.1 nano only
20
o4-mini (high) only
1
Comparable categories
1 / 8

Pick o4-mini (high) if you want the stronger benchmark profile. GPT-4.1 nano only becomes the better choice if you need the larger 1M context window or you would rather avoid the extra latency and token burn of a reasoning model.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 1 shared benchmark result across 1 evidence category; 1 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.

Why this result

o4-mini (high) is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 49.19 to 41.14. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.

o4-mini (high)'s sharpest advantage is in mathematics, where it averages 20.2 against 1. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3), 1.034% to 24.828%.

o4-mini (high) 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 o4-mini (high).

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 o4-mini (high)
CategoryGPT-4.1 nanoΔo4-mini (high)
MathGPT-4.1 nano1.0Margin 19.2o4-mini (high)20.2
KnowledgeGPT-4.1 nano50.3MarginNo overlapo4-mini (high)Not measured
Inst. FollowingGPT-4.1 nano83.2MarginNo overlapo4-mini (high)Not measured

Decisive benchmark drivers

The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.

More
A · GPT-4.1 nanoB · o4-mini (high)
  1. FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)

    Math
    Source ↗
    A 1.034%B 24.828%
    Winner: o4-mini (high)Δ 23.8
    FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3): GPT-4.1 nano scored 1.034%; o4-mini (high) scored 24.828%. o4-mini (high) wins this benchmark.

Operational comparison

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

MetricGPT-4.1 nanoo4-mini (high)Comparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensGPT-4.1 nano$0.1 input / $0.4 outputo4-mini (high)Not availableA complete price comparison is not available.
Generation speedtokens per secondGPT-4.1 nano181 tok/so4-mini (high)161 tok/sGPT-4.1 nano has the higher measured throughput.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenGPT-4.1 nano0.63 so4-mini (high)21.94 sGPT-4.1 nano reaches the first token sooner.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensGPT-4.1 nano1Mo4-mini (high)200KGPT-4.1 nano lists the larger context window.

Benchmark Deep Dive

Agentic
BenchmarkGPT-4.1 nanoo4-mini (high)Result
AA Agentic IndexSource 1.2%Not comparable
τ²-bench resultsSource 17.3%Not comparable
GDPval-AASource 0.0%Not comparable
GDPval-AASource 63Not comparable
Coding
BenchmarkGPT-4.1 nanoo4-mini (high)Result
AA Coding IndexSource 11.1%Not comparable
AA-SciCodeSource 25.9%Not comparable
Reasoning
BenchmarkGPT-4.1 nanoo4-mini (high)Result
AA-LCRSource 17.0%Not comparable
CritPtSource 0.0%Not comparable
Knowledge
BenchmarkGPT-4.1 nanoo4-mini (high)Result
MMLUSource 80.1%Not comparable
GPQASource 50.3%Not comparable
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
Matho4-mini (high) wins
BenchmarkGPT-4.1 nanoo4-mini (high)Result
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source 1.034%24.828%o4-mini (high) leads
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source 6.250%Not comparable
Multimodal
BenchmarkGPT-4.1 nanoo4-mini (high)Result
AA-MMMU-ProSource 40.1%Not comparable
Design Arena WebsiteSource 1003Not comparable
Inst. Following
BenchmarkGPT-4.1 nanoo4-mini (high)Result
IFEvalSource 83.2%Not comparable
AA-IFBenchSource 32.0%Not comparable
Frequently Asked Questions (2)

Which is better, GPT-4.1 nano or o4-mini (high)?

o4-mini (high) is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 49.19 to 41.14. The biggest single separator in this matchup is FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3), where the scores are 1.034% and 24.828%.

Which is better for math, GPT-4.1 nano or o4-mini (high)?

o4-mini (high) has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 20.2 versus 1. Inside this category, FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3) is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Related Comparisons

Last updated: July 24, 2026