Model comparison
GPT-4.1 vs Qwen Max
GPT-4.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 35.9 to 34.7 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 23 shared benchmarks.
Summary
- They share 23 benchmarks with published results for both. GPT-4.1 scores higher in 6 categories and Qwen Max in 2 categories; 6 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in reasoning, where Qwen Max leads 25.1 to 11.7.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is Aider Polyglot: 52.4% for GPT-4.1 and 21.8% for Qwen Max.
- Qwen Max is cheaper at $1.60 / $6.40 per million input/output tokens, against $2 / $8 for GPT-4.1.
- GPT-4.1 accepts more context: 1.05M tokens versus 33K.
Side by side
| GPT-4.1 | Qwen Max | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | OpenAI | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 35.9 | 34.7 |
| Released | 2025-04-14 | 2024-04-03 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Context window | 1.05M | 33K |
| Max output | 33K | 8K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $2 | $1.60 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $8 | $6.40 |
| Results tracked | 52 | 23 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding GPT-4.1 leads
GPT-4.1: 34.4 (#238), Qwen Max: 30.7 (#292)
| Benchmark | GPT-4.1 | Qwen Max |
|---|---|---|
| Aider Polyglot | 52.4% | 21.8% |
| LMArena Coding | 1391 | 1288 |
| SWE-bench Verified | 48.5% | — |
| SWE-bench Verified (bash only) | 39.6% | — |
| WeirdML | 39% | — |
| CadEval | 42% | — |
| ALE-Bench | 558.1 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
GPT-4.1: 34.7 (#43), Qwen Max: —
| Benchmark | GPT-4.1 | Qwen Max |
|---|---|---|
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | 54% | — |
Reasoning Qwen Max leads
GPT-4.1: 11.7 (#339), Qwen Max: 25.1 (#151)
| Benchmark | GPT-4.1 | Qwen Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1384 | 1269 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 0.4% | — |
| SimpleBench | 27% | — |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 52.3% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 5.5% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | 6% | — |
| EnigmaEval | 2.2% | — |
| DTBench | 68.3% | — |
| LMCA | 25.6% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 136.78 | — |
| ForecastBench | 61.5 | — |
Math Too close to call
GPT-4.1: 22.3 (#280), Qwen Max: 22.3 (#276)
| Benchmark | GPT-4.1 | Qwen Max |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 38.3% | 16.1% |
| LMArena Math | 1370 | 1275 |
| MATH Level 5 | 83% | 67.2% |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 5.5% | 1% |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 6% | — |
| Omni-MATH | 47.1% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | 0% | — |
Knowledge GPT-4.1 leads
GPT-4.1: 37.1 (#160), Qwen Max: 30.3 (#228)
| Benchmark | GPT-4.1 | Qwen Max |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 66.9% | 56.1% |
| LMArena Expert | 1364 | 1248 |
| Humanity's Last Exam | 5.4% | — |
| SimpleQA Verified | 31.1% | — |
| MMLU-Pro | 81.1% | — |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 5.6% | — |
| GPQA (HELM) | 65.9% | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
GPT-4.1: 38.2 (#67), Qwen Max: —
| Benchmark | GPT-4.1 | Qwen Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1211 | — |
| GeoBench | 72% | — |
Multilingual GPT-4.1 leads
GPT-4.1: 49.4 (#133), Qwen Max: 41.8 (#202)
| Benchmark | GPT-4.1 | Qwen Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1370 | 1263 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1382 | 1254 |
| LMArena French | 1382 | 1330 |
| LMArena German | 1381 | 1254 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1319 | 1205 |
| LMArena Korean | 1339 | 1142 |
| LMArena Russian | 1377 | 1274 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1376 | 1290 |
Instruction Following GPT-4.1 leads
GPT-4.1: 71.3 (#153), Qwen Max: 66.5 (#208)
| Benchmark | GPT-4.1 | Qwen Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1367 | 1262 |
| IFEval | 83.8% | — |
Long Context Too close to call
GPT-4.1: 40.0 (#163), Qwen Max: 39.4 (#180)
| Benchmark | GPT-4.1 | Qwen Max |
|---|---|---|
| Fiction.LiveBench | 63.9% | 66.7% |
| LMArena Longer Query | 1385 | 1288 |
Writing & Preference GPT-4.1 leads
GPT-4.1: 57.6 (#125), Qwen Max: 47.8 (#205)
| Benchmark | GPT-4.1 | Qwen Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1383 | 1282 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1363 | 1248 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1398 | 1277 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1420 | — |
| WildBench | 85.4% | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is GPT-4.1 better than Qwen Max?
GPT-4.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 35.9 to 34.7 on the Noometry Index.
Which is cheaper, GPT-4.1 or Qwen Max?
Qwen Max is cheaper. It lists at $1.60 per million input tokens and $6.40 per million output tokens; GPT-4.1 lists at $2 and $8.
Is GPT-4.1 or Qwen Max better for coding?
GPT-4.1 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 34.4 versus 30.7 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
GPT-4.1 does, with 1.05M tokens against 33K.
How many benchmarks do GPT-4.1 and Qwen Max share?
23 benchmarks have published results for both models. GPT-4.1 has 52 scored results on Noometry and Qwen Max has 23.