Model comparison
GPT-4.1 nano vs Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning)
Head-to-head evidence from 1 shared benchmark result across 1 category. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: GPT-4.1 nano #170 (Estimated); Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning) #72 (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 (Reasoning) share 1 comparable benchmark result. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 20 results are unique to GPT-4.1 nano; 1 to Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning).
Updated July 24, 2026- Shared results
- 1
- GPT-4.1 nano only
- 20
- Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning) only
- 1
- Comparable categories
- 1 / 8
Pick Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning) 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
Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning) is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 57.27 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 (Reasoning)'s sharpest advantage is in mathematics, where it averages 6.4 against 1. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3), 1.034% to 8.481%.
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 (Reasoning). That is roughly Infinityx on output cost alone. Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning) 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 128K for Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning).
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 | Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Math | GPT-4.1 nano1.0 | Margin→ 5.4 | Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning)6.4 |
| Knowledge | GPT-4.1 nano50.3 | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning)Not measured |
| Inst. Following | GPT-4.1 nano83.2 | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning)Not 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 8.481%Winner: Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning)Δ 7.4FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3): GPT-4.1 nano scored 1.034%; Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning) scored 8.481%. Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning) 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 | Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning) | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | GPT-4.1 nano$0.1 input / $0.4 output | Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning)$0 input / $0 output | Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning) has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | GPT-4.1 nano181 tok/s | Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning)Not available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | GPT-4.1 nano0.63 s | Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning)Not available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | GPT-4.1 nano1M | Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning)128K | 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 | Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning) | 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 |
MathQwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning) wins2 benchmarks
Multimodal2 benchmarks
Frequently Asked Questions (2)
Which is better, GPT-4.1 nano or Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning)?
Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning) is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 57.27 to 41.14. The biggest single separator in this matchup is FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3), where the scores are 1.034% and 8.481%.
Which is better for math, GPT-4.1 nano or Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning)?
Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning) has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 6.4 versus 1. Inside this category, FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3) is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.