Noometry

Model comparison

GPT-4.1 nano vs Qwen2.5 Plus 1127

Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.8 to 27.9 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 14 shared benchmarks.

GPT-4.1 nano OpenAI

27.9

Rank #327 Confirmed

Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 Alibaba (Qwen)

38.8

Rank #181 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 14 benchmarks with published results for both. GPT-4.1 nano scores higher in 1 category and Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 in 7 categories; 6 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in reasoning, where Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 leads 25.9 to 8.5.

Side by side

GPT-4.1 nanoQwen2.5 Plus 1127
ProviderOpenAIAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index27.938.8
Released2025-04-14—
WeightsProprietaryProprietary
Context window1.05M—
Max output33K—
Input $ / M tokens$0.10—
Output $ / M tokens$0.40—
Results tracked3814

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

Category by category

Coding Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 leads

GPT-4.1 nano: 24.1 (#330), Qwen2.5 Plus 1127: 38.5 (#175)

BenchmarkGPT-4.1 nanoQwen2.5 Plus 1127
LMArena Coding13061314
Aider Polyglot8.9%—
SciCode25.9%—
WeirdML19%—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

GPT-4.1 nano: 26.5 (#104), Qwen2.5 Plus 1127: —

BenchmarkGPT-4.1 nanoQwen2.5 Plus 1127
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard33%—

Reasoning Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 leads

GPT-4.1 nano: 8.5 (#349), Qwen2.5 Plus 1127: 25.9 (#141)

BenchmarkGPT-4.1 nanoQwen2.5 Plus 1127
LMArena Hard Prompts12861299
ARC-AGI-20%—
Kagi LLM Benchmark33.3%—
ARC-AGI-10%—
CritPt0%—
DTBench52.5%—
LMCA5.5%—
Epoch Capabilities Index129.62—

Math Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 leads

GPT-4.1 nano: 26.9 (#252), Qwen2.5 Plus 1127: 36.1 (#174)

BenchmarkGPT-4.1 nanoQwen2.5 Plus 1127
LMArena Math12741298
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202528.9%—
Omni-MATH36.7%—
MATH Level 570%—
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)1%—

Knowledge Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 leads

GPT-4.1 nano: 21.8 (#273), Qwen2.5 Plus 1127: 35.5 (#183)

BenchmarkGPT-4.1 nanoQwen2.5 Plus 1127
LMArena Expert12721289
GPQA Diamond48.9%—
SimpleQA Verified6%—
MMLU-Pro55%—
GPQA (HELM)50.7%—

Multimodal Not comparable

GPT-4.1 nano: 29.2 (#113), Qwen2.5 Plus 1127: —

BenchmarkGPT-4.1 nanoQwen2.5 Plus 1127
LMArena Vision1063—

Multilingual Too close to call

GPT-4.1 nano: 41.6 (#205), Qwen2.5 Plus 1127: 41.9 (#201)

BenchmarkGPT-4.1 nanoQwen2.5 Plus 1127
LMArena Non-English12601265
LMArena Chinese12701314
LMArena German12881231
LMArena Japanese11981207
LMArena Russian12611271

Instruction Following Too close to call

GPT-4.1 nano: 67.8 (#193), Qwen2.5 Plus 1127: 67.2 (#199)

BenchmarkGPT-4.1 nanoQwen2.5 Plus 1127
LMArena Instruction Following12671275
IFEval84.3%—

Long Context Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 leads

GPT-4.1 nano: 23.7 (#296), Qwen2.5 Plus 1127: 39.2 (#184)

BenchmarkGPT-4.1 nanoQwen2.5 Plus 1127
LMArena Longer Query12831292
Fiction.LiveBench25%—

Writing & Preference Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 leads

GPT-4.1 nano: 40.5 (#243), Qwen2.5 Plus 1127: 49.4 (#192)

BenchmarkGPT-4.1 nanoQwen2.5 Plus 1127
LMArena Text12851299
LMArena Creative Writing12601262
LMArena Multi-Turn12771299
EQ-Bench Creative Writing946—
WildBench81.2%—

Frequently asked questions

Is GPT-4.1 nano better than Qwen2.5 Plus 1127?

Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.8 to 27.9 on the Noometry Index.

Is GPT-4.1 nano or Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 better for coding?

Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 38.5 versus 24.1 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do GPT-4.1 nano and Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 share?

14 benchmarks have published results for both models. GPT-4.1 nano has 38 scored results on Noometry and Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 has 14.

Related comparisons

Go deeper