Skip to main content

Model comparison

GPT-4.1 nano vs Qwen3 235B 2507

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
14.1pts
winning →
55.26/100
0 category wins1 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: GPT-4.1 nano #170 (Estimated); Qwen3 235B 2507 #84 (Estimated). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. GPT-4.1 nano and Qwen3 235B 2507 share 1 comparable benchmark result. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 20 results are unique to GPT-4.1 nano; 3 to Qwen3 235B 2507.

Updated July 24, 2026
Shared results
1
GPT-4.1 nano only
20
Qwen3 235B 2507 only
3
Comparable categories
1 / 8

Pick Qwen3 235B 2507 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. GPT-4.1 nano only becomes the better choice if you need the larger 1M context window.

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

Qwen3 235B 2507 is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 55.26 to 41.14. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.

Qwen3 235B 2507's sharpest advantage is in knowledge, where it averages 78.9 against 50.3. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is GPQA, 50.3% to 77.5%.

GPT-4.1 nano is also the more expensive model on tokens at $0.10 input / $0.40 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.00 input / $0.00 output per 1M tokens for Qwen3 235B 2507. That is roughly Infinityx on output cost alone. GPT-4.1 nano gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 128K for Qwen3 235B 2507.

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 Qwen3 235B 2507
CategoryGPT-4.1 nanoΔQwen3 235B 2507
KnowledgeGPT-4.1 nano50.3Margin 28.6Qwen3 235B 250778.9
MathGPT-4.1 nano1.0MarginNo overlapQwen3 235B 2507Not measured
MultilingualGPT-4.1 nanoNot measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3 235B 250779.4
Inst. FollowingGPT-4.1 nano83.2MarginNo overlapQwen3 235B 2507Not measured

Decisive benchmark drivers

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

More
A · GPT-4.1 nanoB · Qwen3 235B 2507
  1. GPQA

    Knowledge
    Source ↗
    A 50.3%B 77.5%
    Winner: Qwen3 235B 2507Δ 27.2
    GPQA: GPT-4.1 nano scored 50.3%; Qwen3 235B 2507 scored 77.5%. Qwen3 235B 2507 wins this benchmark.

Operational comparison

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

MetricGPT-4.1 nanoQwen3 235B 2507Comparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensGPT-4.1 nano$0.1 input / $0.4 outputQwen3 235B 2507$0 input / $0 outputQwen3 235B 2507 has the lower combined listed price.
Generation speedtokens per secondGPT-4.1 nano181 tok/sQwen3 235B 2507Not availableA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenGPT-4.1 nano0.63 sQwen3 235B 2507Not availableA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensGPT-4.1 nano1MQwen3 235B 2507128KGPT-4.1 nano lists the larger context window.

Benchmark Deep Dive

Agentic
BenchmarkGPT-4.1 nanoQwen3 235B 2507Result
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 nanoQwen3 235B 2507Result
AA Coding IndexSource 11.1%Not comparable
AA-SciCodeSource 25.9%Not comparable
Reasoning
BenchmarkGPT-4.1 nanoQwen3 235B 2507Result
AA-LCRSource 17.0%Not comparable
CritPtSource 0.0%Not comparable
KnowledgeQwen3 235B 2507 wins
BenchmarkGPT-4.1 nanoQwen3 235B 2507Result
MMLUSource 80.1%Not comparable
GPQASource 50.3%77.5%Qwen3 235B 2507 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
SuperGPQASource 62.6%Not comparable
MMLU-ProSource 83%Not comparable
Math
BenchmarkGPT-4.1 nanoQwen3 235B 2507Result
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source 1.034%Not comparable
Multilingual
BenchmarkGPT-4.1 nanoQwen3 235B 2507Result
MMLU-ProXSource 79.4%Not comparable
Multimodal
BenchmarkGPT-4.1 nanoQwen3 235B 2507Result
AA-MMMU-ProSource 40.1%Not comparable
Design Arena WebsiteSource 1003Not comparable
Inst. Following
BenchmarkGPT-4.1 nanoQwen3 235B 2507Result
IFEvalSource 83.2%Not comparable
AA-IFBenchSource 32.0%Not comparable
Frequently Asked Questions (2)

Which is better, GPT-4.1 nano or Qwen3 235B 2507?

Qwen3 235B 2507 is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 55.26 to 41.14. The biggest single separator in this matchup is GPQA, where the scores are 50.3% and 77.5%.

Which is better for knowledge tasks, GPT-4.1 nano or Qwen3 235B 2507?

Qwen3 235B 2507 has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 78.9 versus 50.3. Inside this category, GPQA is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Related Comparisons

Last updated: July 24, 2026