Model comparison
GPT-4.1 nano vs Qwen3.7 Plus
Head-to-head evidence from 19 shared benchmark results across 6 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: GPT-4.1 nano #161 (Estimated); Qwen3.7 Plus #21 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. GPT-4.1 nano and Qwen3.7 Plus share 19 comparable benchmark results. 3 of 8 categories are comparable. 2 results are unique to GPT-4.1 nano; 50 to Qwen3.7 Plus.
Updated July 23, 2026- Shared results
- 19
- GPT-4.1 nano only
- 2
- Qwen3.7 Plus only
- 50
- Comparable categories
- 3 / 8
Pick Qwen3.7 Plus if you want the stronger benchmark profile. GPT-4.1 nano only becomes the better choice if you would rather avoid the extra latency and token burn of a reasoning model.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 19 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
Qwen3.7 Plus is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 67.22 to 42.06. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
Qwen3.7 Plus's sharpest advantage is in mathematics, where it averages 92.9 against 1. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is GPQA, 50.3% to 90.3%.
Qwen3.7 Plus 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.
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 | Qwen3.7 Plus |
|---|---|---|---|
| Math | GPT-4.1 nano1.0 | Margin→ 91.9 | Qwen3.7 Plus92.9 |
| Knowledge | GPT-4.1 nano50.3 | Margin→ 9.8 | Qwen3.7 Plus60.1 |
| Inst. Following | GPT-4.1 nano83.2 | Margin→ 1.3 | Qwen3.7 Plus84.5 |
| Agentic | GPT-4.1 nanoNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.7 Plus71.7 |
| Coding | GPT-4.1 nanoNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.7 Plus75.6 |
| Reasoning | GPT-4.1 nanoNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.7 Plus91.7 |
| Multilingual | GPT-4.1 nanoNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.7 Plus85.4 |
| Multimodal | GPT-4.1 nanoNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.7 Plus81.5 |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
GPQA
KnowledgeA 50.3%B 90.3%Winner: Qwen3.7 PlusΔ 40GPQA: GPT-4.1 nano scored 50.3%; Qwen3.7 Plus scored 90.3%. Qwen3.7 Plus wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
IFEval
Inst. FollowingA 83.2%B 94.6%Winner: Qwen3.7 PlusΔ 11.4IFEval: GPT-4.1 nano scored 83.2%; Qwen3.7 Plus scored 94.6%. Qwen3.7 Plus 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 | Qwen3.7 Plus | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | GPT-4.1 nano$0.1 input / $0.4 output | Qwen3.7 PlusNot available | A complete price comparison is not available. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | GPT-4.1 nano181 tok/s | Qwen3.7 PlusNot available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | GPT-4.1 nano0.63 s | Qwen3.7 PlusNot available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | GPT-4.1 nano1M | Qwen3.7 Plus1M | Listed context windows are equal. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic16 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GPT-4.1 nano | Qwen3.7 Plus | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Agentic IndexSource | 1.2% | 20.8% | Qwen3.7 Plus leads |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | 17.3% | 93% | Qwen3.7 Plus leads |
| GDPval-AASource | 0.0% | 21.8% | Qwen3.7 Plus leads |
| GDPval-AASource | 41 | 936 | Qwen3.7 Plus leads |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | — | 70.3% | Not comparable |
| QwenClawBenchSource | — | 61.8% | Not comparable |
| QwenWebBenchSource | — | 1536 | Not comparable |
| Claw-EvalSource | — | 62.7% | Not comparable |
| BFCL v4Source | — | 72.9% | Not comparable |
| MCP AtlasSource | — | 73.2% | Not comparable |
| VITA-BenchSource | — | 45.6% | Not comparable |
| DeepPlanningSource | — | 62.3% | Not comparable |
| OSWorld-VerifiedSource | — | 73.3% | Not comparable |
| AndroidWorldSource | — | 81.0% | Not comparable |
| APEX-Agents-AASource | — | 22.4% | Not comparable |
| OSWorld 2.0Source | — | 2.8% | Not comparable |
Coding9 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GPT-4.1 nano | Qwen3.7 Plus | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Coding IndexSource | 11.1% | 55.9% | Qwen3.7 Plus leads |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 25.9% | 45.5% | Qwen3.7 Plus leads |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | — | 70.3% | Not comparable |
| SWE-bench VerifiedSource | — | 77.7% | Not comparable |
| SWE-bench ProSource | — | 57.6% | Not comparable |
| SWE MultilingualSource | — | 75.8% | Not comparable |
| NL2RepoSource | — | 41.1% | Not comparable |
| SciCodeSource | — | 51.3% | Not comparable |
| LiveCodeBenchSource | — | 89.6% | Not comparable |
Reasoning3 benchmarks
KnowledgeQwen3.7 Plus wins14 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GPT-4.1 nano | Qwen3.7 Plus | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMLUSource | 80.1% | — | Not comparable |
| GPQASource | 50.3% | 90.3% | Qwen3.7 Plus leads |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 9.6% | 39.0% | Qwen3.7 Plus leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 51.2% | 90.0% | Qwen3.7 Plus leads |
| AA-HLESource | 3.9% | 33.4% | Qwen3.7 Plus leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | -56.4% | 2.4% | Qwen3.7 Plus leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 13.3% | 22.2% | Qwen3.7 Plus leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 80.4% | 25.5% | Qwen3.7 Plus leads |
| GPQA-DSource | — | 90.3% | Not comparable |
| HLESource | — | 34.7% | Not comparable |
| MMLU-ProSource | — | 88.5% | Not comparable |
| MMLU-ReduxSource | — | 94.5% | Not comparable |
| SuperGPQASource | — | 71.4% | Not comparable |
| MMMLUSource | — | 89.0% | Not comparable |
MathQwen3.7 Plus wins4 benchmarks
Multilingual5 benchmarks
Multimodal17 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GPT-4.1 nano | Qwen3.7 Plus | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-MMMU-ProSource | 40.1% | 80.5% | Qwen3.7 Plus leads |
| Design Arena WebsiteSource | 1003 | 1288 | Qwen3.7 Plus leads |
| MMMU-ProSource | — | 79% | Not comparable |
| MathVisionSource | — | 90.3% | Not comparable |
| CharXivSource | — | 85.9% | Not comparable |
| ERQASource | — | 69.8% | Not comparable |
| MedXpertQA (MM)Source | — | 71.0% | Not comparable |
| ScreenSpot ProSource | — | 79.0% | Not comparable |
| SimpleVQASource | — | 81.7% | Not comparable |
| MMSearch-PlusSource | — | 41.4% | Not comparable |
| RealWorldQASource | — | 86.9% | Not comparable |
| OmniDocBench 1.5Source | — | 91.4% | Not comparable |
| OCRBench V2Source | — | 70.7% | Not comparable |
| ODINW13Source | — | 51.1% | Not comparable |
| Video-MME (with subtitle)Source | — | 88.0% | Not comparable |
| VideoMMMUSource | — | 85.4% | Not comparable |
| MLVU (M-Avg)Source | — | 87.4% | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (4)
Which is better, GPT-4.1 nano or Qwen3.7 Plus?
Qwen3.7 Plus is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 67.22 to 42.06. The biggest single separator in this matchup is GPQA, where the scores are 50.3% and 90.3%.
Which is better for knowledge tasks, GPT-4.1 nano or Qwen3.7 Plus?
Qwen3.7 Plus has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 60.1 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 Qwen3.7 Plus?
Qwen3.7 Plus has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 92.9 versus 1. GPT-4.1 nano stays close enough that the answer can still flip depending on your workload.
Which is better for instruction following, GPT-4.1 nano or Qwen3.7 Plus?
Qwen3.7 Plus has the edge for instruction following in this comparison, averaging 84.5 versus 83.2. Inside this category, AA-IFBench is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Related Comparisons
Explore More
Choose a model with this week’s evidence
Join 2,000+ readers for ranking moves, pricing changes, and the claims that still need proof.
One email each week. Unsubscribe anytime.