Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

GLM 4.6V vs GPT-4.1 Nano

GLM 4.6V leads GPT-4.1 Nano on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index, 11.2 to 7.8, and GPT-4.1 Nano costs 2.3x less per output token ($0.40 vs $0.90 per million). Updated October 22, 2026; 33 benchmarks have a result for both.

Replace GLM 4.6V Replace GPT-4.1 Nano
GLM 4.6VZ.ai
Coding
No data
Overall
No data
Output $/M
$0.90
32
GPT-4.1 NanoOpenAI
Coding
No data
Overall
24.7
Output $/M
$0.40
1
vs boards won of 33 shared

GLM 4.6V or GPT-4.1 Nano: which to pick

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

Pick GLM 4.6V for work measured by IFBench, where it leads.

Model AGLM 4.6VZ.aiNot benchmarkedNo coding benchmarkNo cost per solved taskModel BGPT-4.1 NanoOpenAINot benchmarkedNo coding benchmarkNo cost per solved task
Shared results
33
GLM 4.6V only
5
GPT-4.1 Nano only
38
Like-for-like categories
7 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 4.6V not benchmarked, GPT-4.1 Nano not benchmarked.
Widest category
Math, 61.3 points apart on average over 2 shared benchmarks.
Widest single gap
AIME 2025 (Artificial Analysis run): GLM 4.6V 85.3% against GPT-4.1 Nano 24.0%, 61.3 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
Output price
GLM 4.6V $0.90 against GPT-4.1 Nano $0.40 per million output tokens, 2.3x apart.
Context window
GLM 4.6V 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 4.6VBarsGPT-4.1 NanoTies
Coding40
Intelligence10
Agentic work10
Reasoning50
Math20
Knowledge50
General141
All shared boards321
CodingLike-for-likeSix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index40
Coding benchmarks for GLM 4.6V and GPT-4.1 Nano
BenchmarkGLM 4.6VGPT-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)41.1%32.6%GLM 4.6V
Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run)14.4%3.8%GLM 4.6V
WeirdMLNot measured19.0%Only GPT-4.1 Nano measured
LMArena Text: coding13891306GLM 4.6V
LMArena Text: software and IT13911305GLM 4.6V
Neither model has a result on the other 31 boards here
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index10
Intelligence benchmarks for GLM 4.6V and GPT-4.1 Nano
BenchmarkGLM 4.6VGPT-4.1 NanoLeader
AA Intelligence Index11.27.8GLM 4.6V
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 4.6V and GPT-4.1 Nano
BenchmarkGLM 4.6VGPT-4.1 NanoLeader
τ²-Bench Telecom31.6%17.3%GLM 4.6V
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard (BFCL)Not measured33.1%Only GPT-4.1 Nano measured
Neither model has a result on the other 39 boards here
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index50
Reasoning benchmarks for GLM 4.6V and GPT-4.1 Nano
BenchmarkGLM 4.6VGPT-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)71.9%51.2%GLM 4.6V
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)9.6%3.8%GLM 4.6V
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 prompts13671286GLM 4.6V
LMArena Text: expert13711271GLM 4.6V
LMArena Text: hard prompts in English13911293GLM 4.6V
LMArena Vision: diagrams1182Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6V measured
LMArena Vision: homework1155Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6V measured
Kagi LLM BenchmarkNot measured33.3%Only GPT-4.1 Nano measured
Neither model has a result on the other 8 boards here
MathLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index20
Math benchmarks for GLM 4.6V and GPT-4.1 Nano
BenchmarkGLM 4.6VGPT-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 Index85.324.0GLM 4.6V
AIME 2025 (Artificial Analysis run)85.3%24.0%GLM 4.6V
OTIS Mock AIMENot measured28.9%Only GPT-4.1 Nano measured
MATH level 5Not measured70.0%Only GPT-4.1 Nano measured
LMArena Text: mathNot measured1274Only GPT-4.1 Nano measured
LMArena Text: mathematical workNot measured1274Only GPT-4.1 Nano 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 4.6V and GPT-4.1 Nano
BenchmarkGLM 4.6VGPT-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)79.9%65.7%GLM 4.6V
SimpleQA VerifiedNot measured6.0%Only GPT-4.1 Nano measured
LMArena Text: science13891297GLM 4.6V
LMArena Text: medicine and healthcare13891276GLM 4.6V
LMArena Text: legal and government13931300GLM 4.6V
LMArena Text: business and finance13591267GLM 4.6V
Neither model has a result on the other 6 boards here
Web designDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index6 boards, none shared
Web design benchmarks for GLM 4.6V and GPT-4.1 Nano
BenchmarkGLM 4.6VGPT-4.1 NanoLeader
Design Arena: websitesNot measured972Only GPT-4.1 Nano measured
Design Arena: UI componentsNot measured913Only GPT-4.1 Nano measured
Design Arena: game devNot measured970Only GPT-4.1 Nano measured
Design Arena: data vizNot measured891Only GPT-4.1 Nano measured
Design Arena: 3DNot measured924Only GPT-4.1 Nano measured
Design Arena: all code categoriesNot measured962Only GPT-4.1 Nano measured
Neither model has a result on the other 3 boards here
GeneralLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index141
General benchmarks for GLM 4.6V and GPT-4.1 Nano
BenchmarkGLM 4.6VGPT-4.1 NanoLeader
IFBench30.1%32.0%GPT-4.1 Nano
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR)48.7%20.3%GLM 4.6V
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 Text13761285GLM 4.6V
LMArena Text: instruction following13501266GLM 4.6V
LMArena Text: creative writing13471260GLM 4.6V
LMArena Vision11641063GLM 4.6V
LMArena Text: English13951303GLM 4.6V
LMArena Text: non-English13581260GLM 4.6V
LMArena Text: Chinese14251270GLM 4.6V
LMArena Text: GermanNot measured1288Only GPT-4.1 Nano measured
LMArena Text: JapaneseNot measured1198Only GPT-4.1 Nano measured
LMArena Text: Russian13391261GLM 4.6V
LMArena Text: multi-turn13591277GLM 4.6V
LMArena Text: longer queries13571283GLM 4.6V
LMArena Text: writing and language13471261GLM 4.6V
LMArena Text: entertainment and media13431243GLM 4.6V
LMArena Vision: English11791101GLM 4.6V
LMArena Vision: Chinese1217Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6V measured
LMArena Vision: reading text1171Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6V measured
LMArena Vision: creative writing1113Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6V measured
Neither model has a result on the other 23 boards here
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
Image generation benchmarks for GLM 4.6V and GPT-4.1 Nano
BenchmarkGLM 4.6VGPT-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 4.6V$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 4.6V$0.018Fits 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 4.6V$0.069Exceeds 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 4.6V and GPT-4.1 Nano
SpecificationZ.ai GLM 4.6VOpenAI GPT-4.1 Nano
MakerZ.aiOpenAI
WeightsOpen weightsNo public weights listed
ReleasedDecember 8, 2025April 14, 2025
Context window131K1.05M
Input $/Mtok$0.30$0.10
Output $/Mtok$0.90$0.40
Coding indexNot benchmarkedNot benchmarked
Independent measurements behind it00
Cost per solved taskNot computableNot computable
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is GLM 4.6V better than GPT-4.1 Nano for coding?

Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Pick GLM 4.6V for work measured by IFBench, where it leads.

Which is cheaper, GLM 4.6V or GPT-4.1 Nano?

GLM 4.6V costs $0.30 per million input tokens and $0.90 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 4.6V or GPT-4.1 Nano?

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

How many benchmarks is the GLM 4.6V vs GPT-4.1 Nano comparison based on?

33 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 22, 2026. GLM 4.6V'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