Model comparison

GPT-4.1 nano vs Qwen2.5-Coder (1.5B)

GPT-4.1 nano has enough public results to be ranked (#327); Qwen2.5-Coder (1.5B) does not yet, so treat this comparison as directional.

Last verified . 1 shared benchmarks.

GPT-4.1 nano OpenAI

27.9

Rank #327 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 1 benchmark with published results for both.
  • Qwen2.5-Coder (1.5B) has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

GPT-4.1 nano and Qwen2.5-Coder (1.5B) specifications
GPT-4.1 nanoQwen2.5-Coder (1.5B)
ProviderOpenAIAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index27.9—
Released2025-04-142024-09-18
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window1.05M—
Max output33K—
Input $ / M tokens$0.10—
Output $ / M tokens$0.40—
Results tracked386

Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry

Category by category

Coding Not comparable

GPT-4.1 nano: 24.1 (#330), Qwen2.5-Coder (1.5B): —

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkGPT-4.1 nanoQwen2.5-Coder (1.5B)
Aider Polyglot8.9%—
SciCode25.9%—
WeirdML19%—
LMArena Coding1306—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

GPT-4.1 nano: 26.5 (#104), Qwen2.5-Coder (1.5B): —

Agentic & Tool Use benchmarks
BenchmarkGPT-4.1 nanoQwen2.5-Coder (1.5B)
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard33%—

Reasoning Not comparable

GPT-4.1 nano: 8.5 (#349), Qwen2.5-Coder (1.5B): —

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkGPT-4.1 nanoQwen2.5-Coder (1.5B)
Epoch Capabilities Index129.62113.14
ARC-AGI-20%—
Kagi LLM Benchmark33.3%—
ARC-AGI-10%—
CritPt0%—
LMArena Hard Prompts1286—
DTBench52.5%—
LMCA5.5%—
HellaSwag—76.8%
WinoGrande—72.9%

Math Not comparable

GPT-4.1 nano: 26.9 (#252), Qwen2.5-Coder (1.5B): —

Math benchmarks
BenchmarkGPT-4.1 nanoQwen2.5-Coder (1.5B)
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202528.9%—
Omni-MATH36.7%—
LMArena Math1274—
MATH Level 570%—
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)1%—
GSM8K—86.7%

Knowledge Not comparable

GPT-4.1 nano: 21.8 (#273), Qwen2.5-Coder (1.5B): —

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkGPT-4.1 nanoQwen2.5-Coder (1.5B)
GPQA Diamond48.9%—
SimpleQA Verified6%—
MMLU-Pro55%—
GPQA (HELM)50.7%—
LMArena Expert1272—
ARC (AI2) Challenge—60.9%
MMLU—68%

Multimodal Not comparable

GPT-4.1 nano: 29.2 (#113), Qwen2.5-Coder (1.5B): —

Multimodal benchmarks
BenchmarkGPT-4.1 nanoQwen2.5-Coder (1.5B)
LMArena Vision1063—

Multilingual Not comparable

GPT-4.1 nano: 41.6 (#205), Qwen2.5-Coder (1.5B): —

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkGPT-4.1 nanoQwen2.5-Coder (1.5B)
LMArena Non-English1260—
LMArena Chinese1270—
LMArena German1288—
LMArena Japanese1198—
LMArena Russian1261—

Instruction Following Not comparable

GPT-4.1 nano: 67.8 (#193), Qwen2.5-Coder (1.5B): —

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkGPT-4.1 nanoQwen2.5-Coder (1.5B)
IFEval84.3%—
LMArena Instruction Following1267—

Long Context Not comparable

GPT-4.1 nano: 23.7 (#296), Qwen2.5-Coder (1.5B): —

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkGPT-4.1 nanoQwen2.5-Coder (1.5B)
Fiction.LiveBench25%—
LMArena Longer Query1283—

Writing & Preference Not comparable

GPT-4.1 nano: 40.5 (#243), Qwen2.5-Coder (1.5B): —

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkGPT-4.1 nanoQwen2.5-Coder (1.5B)
LMArena Text1285—
LMArena Creative Writing1260—
EQ-Bench Creative Writing946—
WildBench81.2%—
LMArena Multi-Turn1277—

Frequently asked questions

Is GPT-4.1 nano better than Qwen2.5-Coder (1.5B)?

GPT-4.1 nano has enough public results to be ranked (#327); Qwen2.5-Coder (1.5B) does not yet, so treat this comparison as directional.

How many benchmarks do GPT-4.1 nano and Qwen2.5-Coder (1.5B) share?

1 benchmark has published results for both models. GPT-4.1 nano has 38 scored results on Noometry and Qwen2.5-Coder (1.5B) has 6.

Related comparisons

Go deeper