Model comparison
GPT-4.1 nano vs Step 3.7 Flash
Head-to-head evidence from 18 shared benchmark results across 6 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
BenchAlign evidence: GPT-4.1 nano estimated; Step 3.7 Flash estimated. Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. GPT-4.1 nano and Step 3.7 Flash share 18 comparable benchmark results. 0 of 8 categories are comparable. 4 results are unique to GPT-4.1 nano; 12 to Step 3.7 Flash.
Updated July 16, 2026- Shared results
- 18
- GPT-4.1 nano only
- 4
- Step 3.7 Flash only
- 12
- Comparable categories
- 0 / 8
Benchmark data for GPT-4.1 nano and Step 3.7 Flash is coming soon on BenchLM.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 18 shared benchmark results across 6 evidence categories; 0 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.
Why this result
BenchLM has partial data for these models, but not enough overlapping benchmark coverage to produce a fair score-level comparison yet.
Step 3.7 Flash is priced at $0.20 input / $1.15 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.10 input / $0.40 output per 1M tokens for GPT-4.1 nano. GPT-4.1 nano has the larger context window at 1M, compared with 256K for Step 3.7 Flash.
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 | Step 3.7 Flash |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agentic | GPT-4.1 nanoNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Step 3.7 Flash66.4 |
| Coding | GPT-4.1 nanoNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Step 3.7 Flash56.3 |
| Knowledge | GPT-4.1 nano50.3 | MarginNo overlap | Step 3.7 FlashNot measured |
| Math | GPT-4.1 nano1.0 | MarginNo overlap | Step 3.7 FlashNot measured |
| Inst. Following | GPT-4.1 nano83.2 | MarginNo overlap | Step 3.7 FlashNot measured |
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | GPT-4.1 nano | Step 3.7 Flash | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | GPT-4.1 nano$0.1 input / $0.4 output | Step 3.7 Flash$0.2 input / $1.15 output | GPT-4.1 nano has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | GPT-4.1 nano181 tok/s | Step 3.7 FlashNot available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | GPT-4.1 nano0.63 s | Step 3.7 FlashNot available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | GPT-4.1 nano1M | Step 3.7 Flash256K | GPT-4.1 nano lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic12 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GPT-4.1 nano | Step 3.7 Flash | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Agentic IndexSource | 1.2% | 21.5% | Step 3.7 Flash leads |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | 17.3% | 98.5% | Step 3.7 Flash leads |
| GDPval-AASource | 0.0% | 25.9% | Step 3.7 Flash leads |
| GDPval-AASource | 41 | 1017 | Step 3.7 Flash leads |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | — | 59.5% | Not comparable |
| BrowseCompSource | — | 75.8% | Not comparable |
| DeepSearchQASource | — | 92.8% | Not comparable |
| ToolathlonSource | — | 49.5% | Not comparable |
| Claw-EvalSource | — | 67.1% | Not comparable |
| HLE w/ toolsSource | — | 47.2% | Not comparable |
| Gert LabsSource | — | 51.57% | Not comparable |
| APEX-Agents-AASource | — | 14.8% | Not comparable |
Coding5 benchmarks
Reasoning2 benchmarks
Knowledge8 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GPT-4.1 nano | Step 3.7 Flash | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMLUSource | 80.1% | — | Not comparable |
| GPQASource | 50.3% | — | Not comparable |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 9.6% | 30.3% | Step 3.7 Flash leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 51.2% | 80.9% | Step 3.7 Flash leads |
| AA-HLESource | 3.9% | 19.9% | Step 3.7 Flash leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | -56.4% | -37.5% | Step 3.7 Flash leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 13.3% | 25.4% | Step 3.7 Flash leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 80.4% | 84.4% | GPT-4.1 nano leads |
Math1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GPT-4.1 nano | Step 3.7 Flash | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source | 1.034% | — | Not comparable |
Multimodal4 benchmarks
Frequently Asked Questions (3)
Can I compare GPT-4.1 nano and Step 3.7 Flash on BenchLM yet?
Not fully yet. BenchLM is tracking both models, but the sourced benchmark breakdown for this comparison is still coming soon.
Why does this comparison show “coming soon”?
BenchLM only shows category winners and benchmark-level calls when we have sourced results that can be compared fairly. For these models, the public benchmark coverage is not complete enough yet.
What data is available for GPT-4.1 nano and Step 3.7 Flash today?
GPT-4.1 nano: $0.10 input / $0.40 output per 1M tokens Step 3.7 Flash: $0.20 input / $1.15 output per 1M tokens Both model pages still include creator, context window, reasoning mode, and other metadata while benchmark coverage fills in.
Related Comparisons
Explore More
The AI models change fast. We track them for you.
A weekly brief for engineers and researchers covering new models, ranking shifts, and pricing changes.
Free. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.