Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

GLM 4.5 Air vs GPT-4.1 Nano

GLM 4.5 Air leads GPT-4.1 Nano on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index, 11.1 to 7.8, and GPT-4.1 Nano costs 2.8x less per output token ($0.40 vs $1.10 per million). Updated October 22, 2026; 42 benchmarks have a result for both.

Replace GLM 4.5 Air Replace GPT-4.1 Nano
GLM 4.5 AirZ.ai
Coding
No data
Overall
No data
Output $/M
$1.10
42
GPT-4.1 NanoOpenAI
Coding
No data
Overall
24.7
Output $/M
$0.40
0
vs boards won of 42 shared

GLM 4.5 Air or GPT-4.1 Nano: which to pick

Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding.

Compare them on price, context and the boards below.

Model AGLM 4.5 AirZ.aiNot benchmarkedNo coding benchmarkNo cost per solved taskModel BGPT-4.1 NanoOpenAINot benchmarkedNo coding benchmarkNo cost per solved task
Shared results
42
GLM 4.5 Air only
7
GPT-4.1 Nano only
29
Like-for-like categories
8 of 9

Only benchmarks that tested both models count toward a pick; a result only one model has is shown but not compared.

Which one for your work

Each card is decided by one number both models carry. Where only one has it, the card says so and makes no call.

At a glance

Coding index
GLM 4.5 Air not benchmarked, GPT-4.1 Nano not benchmarked.
Widest category
Math, 38.4 points apart on average over 4 shared benchmarks.
Widest single gap
AA Math Index: GLM 4.5 Air 80.7 against GPT-4.1 Nano 24.0, 56.7 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
Output price
GLM 4.5 Air $1.10 against GPT-4.1 Nano $0.40 per million output tokens, 2.8x apart.
Context window
GLM 4.5 Air takes 131K tokens, GPT-4.1 Nano 1.05M.

Benchmark by benchmark

First the score: boards each model leads, per category, where both have a result. Then every board, a category to a fold; bars are each result on a 0 to 100 scale, so compare the two in a row, not one row with another.

Boards won, where both have a result
CategoryGLM 4.5 AirBarsGPT-4.1 NanoTies
Coding40
Intelligence10
Agentic work10
Reasoning60
Math40
Knowledge50
Web design60
General150
All shared boards420
CodingLike-for-likeSix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index40
Coding benchmarks for GLM 4.5 Air and GPT-4.1 Nano
BenchmarkGLM 4.5 AirGPT-4.1 NanoLeader
Aider polyglotNot measured8.9%Only GPT-4.1 Nano measured
AA Coding IndexNot measured11.1Only GPT-4.1 Nano measured
LiveCodeBench (Vals AI)Not measured42.7%Only GPT-4.1 Nano measured
LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run)68.4%32.6%GLM 4.5 Air
Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run)20.5%3.8%GLM 4.5 Air
GSO-Bench2.9%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5 Air measured
WeirdMLNot measured19.0%Only GPT-4.1 Nano measured
LMArena Text: coding13971306GLM 4.5 Air
LMArena Text: software and IT14011305GLM 4.5 Air
Neither model has a result on the other 34 boards here
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index10
Intelligence benchmarks for GLM 4.5 Air and GPT-4.1 Nano
BenchmarkGLM 4.5 AirGPT-4.1 NanoLeader
AA Intelligence Index11.17.8GLM 4.5 Air
Epoch Capabilities IndexNot measured129.5Only GPT-4.1 Nano measured
Agentic workLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index10
Agentic work benchmarks for GLM 4.5 Air and GPT-4.1 Nano
BenchmarkGLM 4.5 AirGPT-4.1 NanoLeader
τ²-Bench Telecom46.5%17.3%GLM 4.5 Air
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard (BFCL)Not measured33.1%Only GPT-4.1 Nano measured
Neither model has a result on the other 40 boards here
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index60
Reasoning benchmarks for GLM 4.5 Air and GPT-4.1 Nano
BenchmarkGLM 4.5 AirGPT-4.1 NanoLeader
GPQA DiamondNot measured50.8%Only GPT-4.1 Nano measured
MMMU Pro (Vals AI)Not measured55.0%Only GPT-4.1 Nano measured
GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run)73.3%51.2%GLM 4.5 Air
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)7.0%3.8%GLM 4.5 Air
GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run)Not measured48.9%Only GPT-4.1 Nano measured
ARC-AGINot measured0.0%Only GPT-4.1 Nano measured
ARC-AGI-2Not measured0.0%Only GPT-4.1 Nano measured
Chess puzzlesNot measured0.0%Only GPT-4.1 Nano measured
LMArena Text: hard prompts13791286GLM 4.5 Air
LMArena Text: expert13701271GLM 4.5 Air
LMArena Text: hard prompts in English13881293GLM 4.5 Air
Kagi LLM Benchmark43.0%33.3%GLM 4.5 Air
Neither model has a result on the other 11 boards here
MathLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index40
Math benchmarks for GLM 4.5 Air and GPT-4.1 Nano
BenchmarkGLM 4.5 AirGPT-4.1 NanoLeader
AIMENot measured26.5%Only GPT-4.1 Nano measured
MATH 500 (Vals AI)Not measured80.2%Only GPT-4.1 Nano measured
MGSM (Vals AI)Not measured69.3%Only GPT-4.1 Nano measured
AA Math Index80.724.0GLM 4.5 Air
AIME 2025 (Artificial Analysis run)80.7%24.0%GLM 4.5 Air
OTIS Mock AIMENot measured28.9%Only GPT-4.1 Nano measured
MATH level 5Not measured70.0%Only GPT-4.1 Nano measured
LMArena Text: math13961274GLM 4.5 Air
LMArena Text: mathematical work13961274GLM 4.5 Air
MathArena12.0%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5 Air measured
Neither model has a result on the other 4 boards here
KnowledgeLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index50
Knowledge benchmarks for GLM 4.5 Air and GPT-4.1 Nano
BenchmarkGLM 4.5 AirGPT-4.1 NanoLeader
MMLU ProNot measured63.5%Only GPT-4.1 Nano measured
LegalBench (Vals AI)Not measured61.1%Only GPT-4.1 Nano measured
CorpFin (Vals AI)Not measured42.1%Only GPT-4.1 Nano measured
TaxEval (Vals AI)Not measured60.8%Only GPT-4.1 Nano measured
MortgageTax (Vals AI)Not measured52.8%Only GPT-4.1 Nano measured
MedQA (Vals AI)Not measured68.2%Only GPT-4.1 Nano measured
MMLU Pro (Artificial Analysis run)81.5%65.7%GLM 4.5 Air
SimpleQA VerifiedNot measured6.0%Only GPT-4.1 Nano measured
LMArena Text: science14071297GLM 4.5 Air
LMArena Text: medicine and healthcare14021276GLM 4.5 Air
LMArena Text: legal and government13821300GLM 4.5 Air
LMArena Text: business and finance13711267GLM 4.5 Air
Neither model has a result on the other 8 boards here
Web designLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index60
Web design benchmarks for GLM 4.5 Air and GPT-4.1 Nano
BenchmarkGLM 4.5 AirGPT-4.1 NanoLeader
Design Arena: websites1146973GLM 4.5 Air
Design Arena: UI components1121913GLM 4.5 Air
Design Arena: game dev1093970GLM 4.5 Air
Design Arena: data viz1186891GLM 4.5 Air
Design Arena: 3D1122924GLM 4.5 Air
Design Arena: all code categories1137962GLM 4.5 Air
Design Arena: SVG1070Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5 Air measured
Neither model has a result on the other 2 boards here
GeneralLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index150
General benchmarks for GLM 4.5 Air and GPT-4.1 Nano
BenchmarkGLM 4.5 AirGPT-4.1 NanoLeader
IFBench37.6%32.0%GLM 4.5 Air
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR)46.7%20.3%GLM 4.5 Air
DTBenchNot measured52.5%Only GPT-4.1 Nano measured
LMCANot measured5.5%Only GPT-4.1 Nano measured
Fiction.LiveBenchNot measured25.0%Only GPT-4.1 Nano measured
LMArena Text13841285GLM 4.5 Air
LMArena Text: instruction following13541266GLM 4.5 Air
LMArena Text: creative writing13431260GLM 4.5 Air
LMArena VisionNot measured1063Only GPT-4.1 Nano measured
LMArena Text: English13971303GLM 4.5 Air
LMArena Text: non-English13661260GLM 4.5 Air
LMArena Text: Chinese14261270GLM 4.5 Air
LMArena Text: German13771288GLM 4.5 Air
LMArena Text: Japanese13481198GLM 4.5 Air
LMArena Text: Korean1308Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5 Air measured
LMArena Text: French1400Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5 Air measured
LMArena Text: Spanish1385Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5 Air measured
LMArena Text: Russian13731261GLM 4.5 Air
LMArena Text: Polish1368Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5 Air measured
LMArena Text: multi-turn13711277GLM 4.5 Air
LMArena Text: longer queries13661283GLM 4.5 Air
LMArena Text: writing and language13541261GLM 4.5 Air
LMArena Text: entertainment and media13391243GLM 4.5 Air
LMArena Vision: EnglishNot measured1101Only GPT-4.1 Nano measured
Neither model has a result on the other 24 boards here
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
Image generation benchmarks for GLM 4.5 Air and GPT-4.1 Nano
BenchmarkGLM 4.5 AirGPT-4.1 NanoLeader
Neither model has a result on 5 boards here

What each workload costs

Three fixed token mixes at each model's listed price, so per-token rates become a bill.

Chat turn

1K input + 500 output tokens

GLM 4.5 Air$0.0008Fits in one request
GPT-4.1 Nano$0.0003Fits in one request

GPT-4.1 Nano costs less

Repository review

50K input + 3K output tokens

GLM 4.5 Air$0.013Fits in one request
GPT-4.1 Nano$0.0062Fits in one request

GPT-4.1 Nano costs less

Agent loop

200K input + 10K output tokens

GLM 4.5 Air$0.051Exceeds the context window
GPT-4.1 Nano$0.024Fits in one request

GPT-4.1 Nano costs less

Listed OpenRouter rates, without cache or batch discounts. A workload that does not fit a model's context window would need splitting.

Specification differences

The leading value in a row is marked; a row with a missing value names no leader. Our two rows are marked in red.

Specifications of GLM 4.5 Air and GPT-4.1 Nano
SpecificationZ.ai GLM 4.5 AirOpenAI GPT-4.1 Nano
MakerZ.aiOpenAI
WeightsOpen weightsNo public weights listed
ReleasedJuly 25, 2025April 14, 2025
Context window131K1.05M
Input $/Mtok$0.20$0.10
Output $/Mtok$1.10$0.40
Coding indexNot benchmarkedNot benchmarked
Independent measurements behind it00
Cost per solved taskNot computableNot computable
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is GLM 4.5 Air better than GPT-4.1 Nano for coding?

Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Compare them on price, context and the boards below.

Which is cheaper, GLM 4.5 Air or GPT-4.1 Nano?

GLM 4.5 Air costs $0.20 per million input tokens and $1.10 per million output tokens; GPT-4.1 Nano costs $0.10 and $0.40. Cost per solved task is known for neither of them.

Which has the bigger context window, GLM 4.5 Air or GPT-4.1 Nano?

GPT-4.1 Nano, with 1.05M tokens against 131K.

How many benchmarks is the GLM 4.5 Air vs GPT-4.1 Nano comparison based on?

42 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 22, 2026. GLM 4.5 Air's coding index rests on 0 independent benchmarks and GPT-4.1 Nano's on 0. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.

Compare next