GPT-4.1 Nano vs GPT-5.1-Codex-Mini
Updated October 21, 2026. 17 benchmarks have a result for both. Coding is ranked on the Vibe Coding Index; every other board is shown as published.
Decision reading
Pick GPT-4.1 Nano for coding: it scores 8.9 on the Vibe Coding Index against 6.2 for GPT-5.1-Codex-Mini.
Pick GPT-5.1-Codex-Mini when what matters is LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run) or Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run), where it leads.
- Shared results
- 17
- GPT-4.1 Nano only
- 52
- GPT-5.1-Codex-Mini only
- 5
- Like-for-like categories
- 8 of 9
Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results only one model has describe coverage, not superiority.
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.
Coding
Vibe Coding Index, four public coding benchmarks
GPT-4.1 Nano
GPT-4.1 Nano scores 8.9 against 6.2.
One benchmark behind each score
Intelligence
AA Intelligence Index
GPT-5.1-Codex-Mini
GPT-5.1-Codex-Mini leads, 20.4 against 7.8.
Same board, both measured
Reasoning
GPQA Diamond
No call
Only GPT-4.1 Nano has a GPQA Diamond result, 50.8%.
Directional only
Math
AIME
No call
Only GPT-4.1 Nano has a AIME result, 26.5%.
Directional only
Knowledge
MMLU Pro
No call
Only GPT-4.1 Nano has a MMLU Pro result, 63.5%.
Directional only
Web design
Design Arena: websites
GPT-5.1-Codex-Mini
GPT-5.1-Codex-Mini leads, 1111 against 973.
Same board, both measured
Long documents
Listed context window
GPT-4.1 Nano
GPT-4.1 Nano takes 1.05M tokens against 400K.
Listed by OpenRouter
Everyday cost
1K input + 500 output tokens
GPT-4.1 Nano
GPT-4.1 Nano $0.0003, GPT-5.1-Codex-Mini $0.0013 per turn.
List prices
At a glance
- Coding index
- GPT-4.1 Nano 8.9 from 1 benchmark, GPT-5.1-Codex-Mini 6.2 from 1 benchmark.
- Widest category
- Math, 67.7 points apart on average over 2 shared benchmarks.
- Widest single gap
- AA Math Index: GPT-4.1 Nano 24.0 against GPT-5.1-Codex-Mini 91.7, 67.7 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
- Output price
- GPT-4.1 Nano $0.40 against GPT-5.1-Codex-Mini $2.00 per million output tokens, 5.0x apart.
- Context window
- GPT-4.1 Nano takes 1.05M tokens, GPT-5.1-Codex-Mini 400K.
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.
| Category | GPT-4.1 Nano | Bars | GPT-5.1-Codex-Mini | Ties |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | 0 | 2 | ||
| Intelligence | 0 | 1 | ||
| Agentic work | 0 | 1 | ||
| Reasoning | 0 | 2 | ||
| Math | 0 | 2 | ||
| Knowledge | 0 | 1 | ||
| Web design | 0 | 6 | ||
| General | 0 | 2 | ||
| All shared boards | 0 | 17 |
CodingLike-for-likeFour of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index02
| Benchmark | GPT-4.1 Nano | GPT-5.1-Codex-Mini | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Aider polyglot | 8.9% | Not measured | Only GPT-4.1 Nano measured |
| LMArena WebDev | Not measured | 1244 | Only GPT-5.1-Codex-Mini measured |
| AA Coding Index | 11.1 | Not measured | Only GPT-4.1 Nano measured |
| LiveCodeBench (Vals AI) | 42.7% | Not measured | Only GPT-4.1 Nano measured |
| LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run) | 32.6% | 83.6% | GPT-5.1-Codex-Mini |
| Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run) | 3.8% | 33.3% | GPT-5.1-Codex-Mini |
| Terminal-Bench | Not measured | 61.6% | Only GPT-5.1-Codex-Mini measured |
| WeirdML | 19.0% | Not measured | Only GPT-4.1 Nano measured |
| LMArena Text: coding | 1306 | Not measured | Only GPT-4.1 Nano measured |
| LMArena Text: software and IT | 1305 | Not measured | Only GPT-4.1 Nano measured |
| LMArena WebDev: HTML | Not measured | 1253 | Only GPT-5.1-Codex-Mini measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 27 boards here | |||
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
| Benchmark | GPT-4.1 Nano | GPT-5.1-Codex-Mini | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Intelligence Index | 7.8 | 20.4 | GPT-5.1-Codex-Mini |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 129.5 | Not measured | Only GPT-4.1 Nano measured |
Agentic workLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
| Benchmark | GPT-4.1 Nano | GPT-5.1-Codex-Mini | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| τ²-Bench Telecom | 17.3% | 62.9% | GPT-5.1-Codex-Mini |
| Neither model has a result on the other 38 boards here | |||
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index02
| Benchmark | GPT-4.1 Nano | GPT-5.1-Codex-Mini | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 50.8% | Not measured | Only GPT-4.1 Nano measured |
| MMMU Pro (Vals AI) | 55.0% | Not measured | Only GPT-4.1 Nano measured |
| GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run) | 51.2% | 81.3% | GPT-5.1-Codex-Mini |
| Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run) | 3.8% | 18.5% | GPT-5.1-Codex-Mini |
| GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run) | 48.9% | Not measured | Only GPT-4.1 Nano measured |
| ARC-AGI | 0.0% | Not measured | Only GPT-4.1 Nano measured |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 0.0% | Not measured | Only GPT-4.1 Nano measured |
| Chess puzzles | 0.0% | Not measured | Only GPT-4.1 Nano measured |
| LMArena Text: hard prompts | 1286 | Not measured | Only GPT-4.1 Nano measured |
| LMArena Text: expert | 1271 | Not measured | Only GPT-4.1 Nano measured |
| LMArena Text: hard prompts in English | 1293 | Not measured | Only GPT-4.1 Nano measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 10 boards here | |||
MathLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index02
| Benchmark | GPT-4.1 Nano | GPT-5.1-Codex-Mini | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AIME | 26.5% | Not measured | Only GPT-4.1 Nano measured |
| MATH 500 (Vals AI) | 80.2% | Not measured | Only GPT-4.1 Nano measured |
| MGSM (Vals AI) | 69.3% | Not measured | Only GPT-4.1 Nano measured |
| AA Math Index | 24.0 | 91.7 | GPT-5.1-Codex-Mini |
| AIME 2025 (Artificial Analysis run) | 24.0% | 91.7% | GPT-5.1-Codex-Mini |
| OTIS Mock AIME | 28.9% | Not measured | Only GPT-4.1 Nano measured |
| MATH level 5 | 70.0% | Not measured | Only GPT-4.1 Nano measured |
| LMArena Text: math | 1274 | Not measured | Only GPT-4.1 Nano measured |
| LMArena Text: mathematical work | 1274 | Not measured | Only 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 index01
| Benchmark | GPT-4.1 Nano | GPT-5.1-Codex-Mini | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMLU Pro | 63.5% | Not measured | Only GPT-4.1 Nano measured |
| LegalBench (Vals AI) | 61.1% | Not measured | Only GPT-4.1 Nano measured |
| CorpFin (Vals AI) | 42.1% | Not measured | Only GPT-4.1 Nano measured |
| TaxEval (Vals AI) | 60.8% | Not measured | Only GPT-4.1 Nano measured |
| MortgageTax (Vals AI) | 52.8% | Not measured | Only GPT-4.1 Nano measured |
| MedQA (Vals AI) | 68.2% | Not measured | Only GPT-4.1 Nano measured |
| MMLU Pro (Artificial Analysis run) | 65.7% | 82.0% | GPT-5.1-Codex-Mini |
| SimpleQA Verified | 6.0% | Not measured | Only GPT-4.1 Nano measured |
| LMArena Text: science | 1297 | Not measured | Only GPT-4.1 Nano measured |
| LMArena Text: medicine and healthcare | 1276 | Not measured | Only GPT-4.1 Nano measured |
| LMArena Text: legal and government | 1300 | Not measured | Only GPT-4.1 Nano measured |
| LMArena Text: business and finance | 1267 | Not measured | Only GPT-4.1 Nano measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 5 boards here | |||
Web designLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index06
| Benchmark | GPT-4.1 Nano | GPT-5.1-Codex-Mini | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Design Arena: websites | 973 | 1111 | GPT-5.1-Codex-Mini |
| Design Arena: UI components | 916 | 1081 | GPT-5.1-Codex-Mini |
| Design Arena: game dev | 971 | 1093 | GPT-5.1-Codex-Mini |
| Design Arena: data viz | 891 | 1097 | GPT-5.1-Codex-Mini |
| Design Arena: 3D | 925 | 988 | GPT-5.1-Codex-Mini |
| Design Arena: all code categories | 963 | 1094 | GPT-5.1-Codex-Mini |
| Design Arena: SVG | Not measured | 977 | Only GPT-5.1-Codex-Mini measured |
| Design Arena: ASCII art | Not measured | 1104 | Only GPT-5.1-Codex-Mini measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 1 board here | |||
GeneralLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index02
| Benchmark | GPT-4.1 Nano | GPT-5.1-Codex-Mini | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| IFBench | 32.0% | 67.9% | GPT-5.1-Codex-Mini |
| Long context reasoning (AA-LCR) | 20.3% | 66.7% | GPT-5.1-Codex-Mini |
| DTBench | 52.5% | Not measured | Only GPT-4.1 Nano measured |
| LMCA | 5.5% | Not measured | Only GPT-4.1 Nano measured |
| Fiction.LiveBench | 25.0% | Not measured | Only GPT-4.1 Nano measured |
| LMArena Text | 1285 | Not measured | Only GPT-4.1 Nano measured |
| LMArena Text: instruction following | 1266 | Not measured | Only GPT-4.1 Nano measured |
| LMArena Text: creative writing | 1260 | Not measured | Only GPT-4.1 Nano measured |
| LMArena Vision | 1063 | Not measured | Only GPT-4.1 Nano measured |
| LMArena Text: English | 1303 | Not measured | Only GPT-4.1 Nano measured |
| LMArena Text: non-English | 1260 | Not measured | Only GPT-4.1 Nano measured |
| LMArena Text: Chinese | 1270 | Not measured | Only GPT-4.1 Nano measured |
| LMArena Text: German | 1288 | Not measured | Only GPT-4.1 Nano measured |
| LMArena Text: Japanese | 1198 | Not measured | Only GPT-4.1 Nano measured |
| LMArena Text: Russian | 1261 | Not measured | Only GPT-4.1 Nano measured |
| LMArena Text: multi-turn | 1277 | Not measured | Only GPT-4.1 Nano measured |
| LMArena Text: longer queries | 1283 | Not measured | Only GPT-4.1 Nano measured |
| LMArena Text: writing and language | 1261 | Not measured | Only GPT-4.1 Nano measured |
| LMArena Text: entertainment and media | 1243 | Not measured | Only GPT-4.1 Nano measured |
| LMArena Vision: English | 1101 | Not measured | Only GPT-4.1 Nano measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 26 boards here | |||
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | GPT-4.1 Nano | GPT-5.1-Codex-Mini | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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
GPT-4.1 Nano costs less
Repository review
50K input + 3K output tokens
GPT-4.1 Nano costs less
Agent loop
200K input + 10K output tokens
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.
| Specification | OpenAI GPT-4.1 Nano | OpenAI GPT-5.1-Codex-Mini |
|---|---|---|
| Maker | OpenAI | OpenAI |
| Weights | No public weights listed | No public weights listed |
| Released | April 14, 2025 | November 13, 2025 |
| Context window | 1.05M | 400K |
| Input $/Mtok | $0.10 | $0.25 |
| Output $/Mtok | $0.40 | $2.00 |
| Coding index | 8.9 | 6.2 |
| Independent measurements behind it | 1 | 1 |
| Cost per solved task | Not computable | Not computable |
| Source | OpenRouter listing | OpenRouter listing |
Questions
Is GPT-4.1 Nano better than GPT-5.1-Codex-Mini for coding?
Pick GPT-4.1 Nano for coding: it scores 8.9 on the Vibe Coding Index against 6.2 for GPT-5.1-Codex-Mini. Pick GPT-5.1-Codex-Mini when what matters is LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run) or Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run), where it leads.
Which is cheaper, GPT-4.1 Nano or GPT-5.1-Codex-Mini?
GPT-4.1 Nano costs $0.10 per million input tokens and $0.40 per million output tokens; GPT-5.1-Codex-Mini costs $0.25 and $2.00. Cost per solved task is known for neither of them.
Which has the bigger context window, GPT-4.1 Nano or GPT-5.1-Codex-Mini?
GPT-4.1 Nano, with 1.05M tokens against 400K.
How many benchmarks is the GPT-4.1 Nano vs GPT-5.1-Codex-Mini comparison based on?
17 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 21, 2026. GPT-4.1 Nano's coding index rests on 1 independent benchmark and GPT-5.1-Codex-Mini's on 1. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.