Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

GPT-4.1 Nano vs GPT-5.2

GPT-5.2 leads GPT-4.1 Nano on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index, 30.4 to 7.8, and GPT-4.1 Nano costs 35.0x less per output token ($0.40 vs $14.00 per million). Updated October 22, 2026; 66 benchmarks have a result for both.

Replace GPT-4.1 Nano Replace GPT-5.2
GPT-4.1 NanoOpenAI
Coding
No data
Overall
24.7
Output $/M
$0.40
0
GPT-5.2OpenAI
Coding
55.9
Overall
60.7
Output $/M
$14.00
66
vs boards won of 66 shared

GPT-4.1 Nano or GPT-5.2: which to pick

Only GPT-5.2 has a coding score, 55.9 on the Vibe Coding Index; GPT-4.1 Nano has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding.

Pick GPT-4.1 Nano for output tokens 35.0x cheaper ($0.40 vs $14.00 per million) and a larger context window (1.05M against 400K tokens).

Model AGPT-4.1 NanoOpenAINot benchmarkedNo coding benchmarkNo cost per solved taskModel BGPT-5.2OpenAI55.9/1003 independent benchmarks$1.91 per solved task
Shared results
66
GPT-4.1 Nano only
5
GPT-5.2 only
48
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
GPT-4.1 Nano not benchmarked, GPT-5.2 55.9 from 3 benchmarks.
Widest category
Math, 52.6 points apart on average over 7 shared benchmarks.
Widest single gap
ARC-AGI: GPT-4.1 Nano 0.0% against GPT-5.2 86.2%, 86.2 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
Output price
GPT-4.1 Nano $0.40 against GPT-5.2 $14.00 per million output tokens, 35.0x apart.
Context window
GPT-4.1 Nano takes 1.05M tokens, GPT-5.2 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.

Boards won, where both have a result
CategoryGPT-4.1 NanoBarsGPT-5.2Ties
Coding06
Intelligence02
Agentic work02
Reasoning012
Math07
Knowledge012
Web design06
General019
All shared boards066
CodingLike-for-likeSix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index06
Coding benchmarks for GPT-4.1 Nano and GPT-5.2
BenchmarkGPT-4.1 NanoGPT-5.2Leader
Aider polyglot8.9%Not measuredOnly GPT-4.1 Nano measured
SWE-bench VerifiedNot measured72.8%Only GPT-5.2 measured
SWE-bench MultilingualNot measured66.7%Only GPT-5.2 measured
LMArena WebDevNot measured1417Only GPT-5.2 measured
AA Coding Index11.1Not measuredOnly GPT-4.1 Nano measured
LiveCodeBench (Vals AI)42.7%85.4%GPT-5.2
SWE-bench Verified (Vals AI)Not measured75.8%Only GPT-5.2 measured
Vibe Code Bench (Vals AI)Not measured53.5%Only GPT-5.2 measured
LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run)32.6%89.4%GPT-5.2
Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run)3.8%47.0%GPT-5.2
Terminal-BenchNot measured64.9%Only GPT-5.2 measured
GSO-BenchNot measured27.5%Only GPT-5.2 measured
WeirdML19.0%72.2%GPT-5.2
ALE-BenchNot measured1293.5Only GPT-5.2 measured
LMArena Text: coding13061442GPT-5.2
LMArena Text: software and IT13051434GPT-5.2
LMArena WebDev: HTMLNot measured1427Only GPT-5.2 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 22 boards here
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index02
Intelligence benchmarks for GPT-4.1 Nano and GPT-5.2
BenchmarkGPT-4.1 NanoGPT-5.2Leader
AA Intelligence Index7.830.4GPT-5.2
Epoch Capabilities Index129.5153.7GPT-5.2
Agentic workLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index02
Agentic work benchmarks for GPT-4.1 Nano and GPT-5.2
BenchmarkGPT-4.1 NanoGPT-5.2Leader
Design Arena: agents building web appsNot measured1086Only GPT-5.2 measured
Design Arena: agents building full-stack appsNot measured1043Only GPT-5.2 measured
Design Arena: agents building mobile appsNot measured1093Only GPT-5.2 measured
Design Arena: agents building Android appsNot measured1059Only GPT-5.2 measured
Design Arena: agents building Godot gamesNot measured1142Only GPT-5.2 measured
τ²-Bench Telecom17.3%84.8%GPT-5.2
METR time horizonsNot measured75.3%Only GPT-5.2 measured
Remote Labor IndexNot measured2.5%Only GPT-5.2 measured
GDPvalNot measured49.7%Only GPT-5.2 measured
DeepResearch BenchNot measured41.1%Only GPT-5.2 measured
Vending-Bench 2Not measured$3,591Only GPT-5.2 measured
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard (BFCL)33.1%55.9%GPT-5.2
Neither model has a result on the other 29 boards here
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index012
Reasoning benchmarks for GPT-4.1 Nano and GPT-5.2
BenchmarkGPT-4.1 NanoGPT-5.2Leader
GPQA Diamond50.8%91.7%GPT-5.2
MMMU Pro (Vals AI)55.0%86.7%GPT-5.2
GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run)51.2%90.3%GPT-5.2
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)3.8%37.7%GPT-5.2
GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run)48.9%91.4%GPT-5.2
ARC-AGI0.0%86.2%GPT-5.2
ARC-AGI-20.0%52.9%GPT-5.2
SimpleBenchNot measured45.8%Only GPT-5.2 measured
Chess puzzles0.0%48.0%GPT-5.2
Mystery game puzzlesNot measured23.0%Only GPT-5.2 measured
EBR-benchNot measured23.0%Only GPT-5.2 measured
VPCTNot measured84.0%Only GPT-5.2 measured
LMArena Text: hard prompts12861428GPT-5.2
LMArena Text: expert12711445GPT-5.2
LMArena Text: hard prompts in English12931431GPT-5.2
LMArena Vision: diagramsNot measured1265Only GPT-5.2 measured
LMArena Vision: homeworkNot measured1276Only GPT-5.2 measured
Kagi LLM Benchmark33.3%73.3%GPT-5.2
Neither model has a result on the other 4 boards here
MathLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index07
Math benchmarks for GPT-4.1 Nano and GPT-5.2
BenchmarkGPT-4.1 NanoGPT-5.2Leader
AIME26.5%96.9%GPT-5.2
MATH 500 (Vals AI)80.2%Not measuredOnly GPT-4.1 Nano measured
MGSM (Vals AI)69.3%94.0%GPT-5.2
AA Math Index24.099.0GPT-5.2
AIME 2025 (Artificial Analysis run)24.0%99.0%GPT-5.2
OTIS Mock AIME28.9%96.1%GPT-5.2
FrontierMath, tiers 1 to 3Not measured67.4%Only GPT-5.2 measured
FrontierMath, tier 4Not measured31.7%Only GPT-5.2 measured
ProofBenchNot measured15.0%Only GPT-5.2 measured
MATH level 570.0%Not measuredOnly GPT-4.1 Nano measured
LMArena Text: math12741440GPT-5.2
LMArena Text: mathematical work12741442GPT-5.2
Neither model has a result on the other 1 board here
KnowledgeLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index012
Knowledge benchmarks for GPT-4.1 Nano and GPT-5.2
BenchmarkGPT-4.1 NanoGPT-5.2Leader
MMLU Pro63.5%86.2%GPT-5.2
LegalBench (Vals AI)61.1%82.8%GPT-5.2
CaseLaw (Vals AI)Not measured66.0%Only GPT-5.2 measured
CorpFin (Vals AI)42.1%65.9%GPT-5.2
TaxEval (Vals AI)60.8%75.8%GPT-5.2
MortgageTax (Vals AI)52.8%67.1%GPT-5.2
MedQA (Vals AI)68.2%94.1%GPT-5.2
MedCode (Vals AI)Not measured49.8%Only GPT-5.2 measured
MMLU Pro (Artificial Analysis run)65.7%87.4%GPT-5.2
SimpleQA Verified6.0%37.1%GPT-5.2
LMArena Text: science12971425GPT-5.2
LMArena Text: medicine and healthcare12761425GPT-5.2
LMArena Text: legal and government13001427GPT-5.2
LMArena Text: business and finance12671414GPT-5.2
FACTS Benchmark SuiteNot measured48.5%Only GPT-5.2 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 3 boards here
Web designLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index06
Web design benchmarks for GPT-4.1 Nano and GPT-5.2
BenchmarkGPT-4.1 NanoGPT-5.2Leader
Design Arena: websites9721195GPT-5.2
Design Arena: UI components9131190GPT-5.2
Design Arena: game dev9701195GPT-5.2
Design Arena: data viz8911202GPT-5.2
Design Arena: 3D9241079GPT-5.2
Design Arena: all code categories9621170GPT-5.2
Design Arena: SVGNot measured1139Only GPT-5.2 measured
Design Arena: ASCII artNot measured1152Only GPT-5.2 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 1 board here
GeneralLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index019
General benchmarks for GPT-4.1 Nano and GPT-5.2
BenchmarkGPT-4.1 NanoGPT-5.2Leader
SAGE (Vals AI)Not measured49.3%Only GPT-5.2 measured
MedScribe (Vals AI)Not measured84.4%Only GPT-5.2 measured
IFBench32.0%75.4%GPT-5.2
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR)20.3%82.7%GPT-5.2
DTBench52.5%90.9%GPT-5.2
LMCA5.5%43.9%GPT-5.2
Fiction.LiveBench25.0%Not measuredOnly GPT-4.1 Nano measured
CL-benchNot measured18.2%Only GPT-5.2 measured
Furniture assemblyNot measured38.3%Only GPT-5.2 measured
LMArena Text12851416GPT-5.2
LMArena Text: instruction following12661409GPT-5.2
LMArena Text: creative writing12601376GPT-5.2
LMArena Vision10631246GPT-5.2
LMArena Text: English13031422GPT-5.2
LMArena Text: non-English12601405GPT-5.2
LMArena Text: Chinese12701447GPT-5.2
LMArena Text: German12881444GPT-5.2
LMArena Text: Japanese11981420GPT-5.2
LMArena Text: KoreanNot measured1374Only GPT-5.2 measured
LMArena Text: FrenchNot measured1454Only GPT-5.2 measured
LMArena Text: SpanishNot measured1413Only GPT-5.2 measured
LMArena Text: Russian12611415GPT-5.2
LMArena Text: PolishNot measured1426Only GPT-5.2 measured
LMArena Text: multi-turn12771419GPT-5.2
LMArena Text: longer queries12831413GPT-5.2
LMArena Text: writing and language12611392GPT-5.2
LMArena Text: entertainment and media12431378GPT-5.2
LMArena Vision: English11011243GPT-5.2
LMArena Vision: ChineseNot measured1305Only GPT-5.2 measured
LMArena Vision: reading textNot measured1257Only GPT-5.2 measured
LMArena Vision: humorNot measured1227Only GPT-5.2 measured
LMArena Vision: captioningNot measured1267Only GPT-5.2 measured
LMArena Vision: recognizing thingsNot measured1232Only GPT-5.2 measured
LMArena Vision: creative writingNot measured1225Only GPT-5.2 measured
LMArena DocumentNot measured1405Only GPT-5.2 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 11 boards here
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
Image generation benchmarks for GPT-4.1 Nano and GPT-5.2
BenchmarkGPT-4.1 NanoGPT-5.2Leader
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$0.0003Fits in one request
GPT-5.2$0.0088Fits in one request

GPT-4.1 Nano costs less

Repository review

50K input + 3K output tokens

GPT-4.1 Nano$0.0062Fits in one request
GPT-5.2$0.130Fits in one request

GPT-4.1 Nano costs less

Agent loop

200K input + 10K output tokens

GPT-4.1 Nano$0.024Fits in one request
GPT-5.2$0.490Fits 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 GPT-4.1 Nano and GPT-5.2
SpecificationOpenAI GPT-4.1 NanoOpenAI GPT-5.2
MakerOpenAIOpenAI
WeightsNo public weights listedNo public weights listed
ReleasedApril 14, 2025December 10, 2025
Context window1.05M400K
Input $/Mtok$0.10$1.75
Output $/Mtok$0.40$14.00
Coding indexNot benchmarked55.9
Independent measurements behind it03
Cost per solved taskNot computable$1.91
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is GPT-4.1 Nano better than GPT-5.2 for coding?

Only GPT-5.2 has a coding score, 55.9 on the Vibe Coding Index; GPT-4.1 Nano has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Pick GPT-4.1 Nano for output tokens 35.0x cheaper ($0.40 vs $14.00 per million) and a larger context window (1.05M against 400K tokens).

Which is cheaper, GPT-4.1 Nano or GPT-5.2?

GPT-4.1 Nano costs $0.10 per million input tokens and $0.40 per million output tokens; GPT-5.2 costs $1.75 and $14.00. Cost per solved task is known for GPT-5.2 only.

Which has the bigger context window, GPT-4.1 Nano or GPT-5.2?

GPT-4.1 Nano, with 1.05M tokens against 400K.

How many benchmarks is the GPT-4.1 Nano vs GPT-5.2 comparison based on?

66 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 22, 2026. GPT-4.1 Nano's coding index rests on 0 independent benchmarks and GPT-5.2's on 3. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.

Compare next