# GPT-4.1 nano vs o1

> o1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 40.6 to 27.7 on the Noometry Index. GPT-4.1 nano costs 150× less per token, which makes it the better buy when o1's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/gpt-4-1-nano-vs-o1
- Last updated: 2026-10-10
- Shared benchmarks: 27

## Summary

- They share 27 benchmarks with published results for both. GPT-4.1 nano scores higher in 1 category and o1 in 9 categories; 10 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in long context, where o1 leads 50.3 to 23.7.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is Fiction.LiveBench: 25% for GPT-4.1 nano and 83.3% for o1.
- GPT-4.1 nano is cheaper at $0.10 / $0.40 per million input/output tokens, against $15 / $60 for o1.
- GPT-4.1 nano accepts more context: 1.05M tokens versus 200K.

## Snapshot

| | GPT-4.1 nano | o1 |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | OpenAI | OpenAI |
| Noometry Index | 27.7 | 40.6 |
| Rank | 322 | 140 |
| Context | 1.05M | 200K |
| Input $/M | $0.10 | $15 |
| Output $/M | $0.40 | $60 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |

## Coding

- GPT-4.1 nano: 23.8 (#325)
- o1: 45.7 (#64)

| Benchmark | GPT-4.1 nano | o1 |
|---|---|---|
| Aider Polyglot | 8.9% | 61.7% |
| WeirdML | 19% | 47.6% |
| LMArena Coding | 1306 | 1367 |
| SciCode | 25.9% | — |
| LiveBench Coding | — | 69.7% |
| CadEval | — | 56% |
| HumanEval+ | — | 89% |
| MBPP+ | — | 80.2% |

## Agentic & Tool Use

- GPT-4.1 nano: 26.3 (#98)
- o1: 24.3 (#111)

| Benchmark | GPT-4.1 nano | o1 |
|---|---|---|
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | 33% | — |
| Cybench | — | 10% |
| METR Time Horizons | — | 51.1% |

## Reasoning

- GPT-4.1 nano: 8.6 (#344)
- o1: 27.5 (#103)

| Benchmark | GPT-4.1 nano | o1 |
|---|---|---|
| ARC-AGI-1 | 0% | 30.7% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1286 | 1372 |
| DTBench | 52.5% | 74.7% |
| LMCA | 5.5% | 22.3% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 129.62 | 141.92 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 0% | — |
| SimpleBench | — | 41.7% |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 33.3% | — |
| CritPt | 0% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 15% |
| EnigmaEval | — | 5.7% |
| LiveBench Reasoning | — | 91.6% |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | — | 65.5% |
| LiveBench | — | 75.7% |

## Math

- GPT-4.1 nano: 25.5 (#246)
- o1: 34.9 (#150)

| Benchmark | GPT-4.1 nano | o1 |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 28.9% | 73.3% |
| LMArena Math | 1274 | 1388 |
| MATH Level 5 | 70% | 94.7% |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 1% | 9.3% |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | — | 14.7% |
| Omni-MATH | 36.7% | — |
| LiveBench Math | — | 80.3% |

## Knowledge

- GPT-4.1 nano: 21.8 (#268)
- o1: 41.5 (#101)

| Benchmark | GPT-4.1 nano | o1 |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 48.9% | 76.8% |
| SimpleQA Verified | 6% | 41.1% |
| LMArena Expert | 1272 | 1362 |
| Humanity's Last Exam | — | 8% |
| MMLU-Pro | 55% | — |
| Confabulations | — | 11.7% |
| GPQA (HELM) | 50.7% | — |

## Multimodal

- GPT-4.1 nano: 28.6 (#108)
- o1: 33.6 (#87)

| Benchmark | GPT-4.1 nano | o1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1063 | 1168 |
| GeoBench | — | 80% |
| VPCT | — | 37% |
| SpatialViz-Bench | — | 41.4% |

## Multilingual

- GPT-4.1 nano: 41.8 (#200)
- o1: 48.8 (#137)

| Benchmark | GPT-4.1 nano | o1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1260 | 1359 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1270 | 1394 |
| LMArena German | 1288 | 1337 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1199 | 1346 |
| LMArena Russian | 1261 | 1356 |
| LMArena French | — | 1343 |
| LMArena Korean | — | 1396 |
| LMArena Spanish | — | 1345 |

## Instruction Following

- GPT-4.1 nano: 68.0 (#188)
- o1: 75.0 (#82)

| Benchmark | GPT-4.1 nano | o1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1267 | 1368 |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | — | 81.5% |
| IFEval | 84.3% | — |

## Long Context

- GPT-4.1 nano: 23.7 (#291)
- o1: 50.3 (#9)

| Benchmark | GPT-4.1 nano | o1 |
|---|---|---|
| Fiction.LiveBench | 25% | 83.3% |
| LMArena Longer Query | 1283 | 1378 |

## Writing & Preference

- GPT-4.1 nano: 40.7 (#238)
- o1: 55.8 (#139)

| Benchmark | GPT-4.1 nano | o1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1285 | 1366 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1260 | 1347 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1277 | 1368 |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | — | 70.2% |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 946 | — |
| WildBench | 81.2% | — |
| LiveBench Language | — | 65.4% |

## FAQ

### Is GPT-4.1 nano better than o1?

o1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 40.6 to 27.7 on the Noometry Index. GPT-4.1 nano costs 150× less per token, which makes it the better buy when o1's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

### Which is cheaper, GPT-4.1 nano or o1?

GPT-4.1 nano is cheaper. It lists at $0.10 per million input tokens and $0.40 per million output tokens; o1 lists at $15 and $60.

### Is GPT-4.1 nano or o1 better for coding?

o1 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 45.7 versus 23.8 in the Noometry coding category.

### Which has the bigger context window?

GPT-4.1 nano does, with 1.05M tokens against 200K.

### How many benchmarks do GPT-4.1 nano and o1 share?

27 benchmarks have published results for both models. GPT-4.1 nano has 38 scored results on Noometry and o1 has 52.