Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

GPT-4.1 Nano vs GPT-6.1 Sol

GPT-6.1 Sol leads GPT-4.1 Nano on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index, 51.8 to 7.8, and GPT-4.1 Nano costs 25.0x less per output token ($0.40 vs $10.00 per million). Updated October 22, 2026; 42 benchmarks have a result for both.

GPT-4.1 NanoOpenAI
Coding
No data
Overall
24.7
Output $/M
$0.40
0
GPT-6.1 SolOpenAI
Coding
82.4
Overall
81.4
Output $/M
$10.00
42
vs boards won of 42 shared

GPT-4.1 Nano or GPT-6.1 Sol: which to pick

Only GPT-6.1 Sol has a coding score, 82.4 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 25.0x cheaper ($0.40 vs $10.00 per million).

Shared results
42
GPT-4.1 Nano only
29
GPT-6.1 Sol only
56
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
GPT-4.1 Nano not benchmarked, GPT-6.1 Sol 82.4 from 5 benchmarks.
Widest category
Reasoning, 56.3 points apart on average over 8 shared benchmarks.
Widest single gap
ARC-AGI: GPT-4.1 Nano 0.0% against GPT-6.1 Sol 98.5%, 98.5 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
Output price
GPT-4.1 Nano $0.40 against GPT-6.1 Sol $10.00 per million output tokens, 25.0x apart.
Context window
GPT-4.1 Nano takes 1.05M tokens, GPT-6.1 Sol 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
CategoryGPT-4.1 NanoBarsGPT-6.1 SolTies
Coding02
Intelligence02
Reasoning08
Math03
Knowledge05
Web design06
General016
All shared boards042
CodingLike-for-likeSix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index02
Coding benchmarks for GPT-4.1 Nano and GPT-6.1 Sol
BenchmarkGPT-4.1 NanoGPT-6.1 SolLeader
Aider polyglot8.9%Not measuredOnly GPT-4.1 Nano measured
LiveBench codingNot measured96.0%Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured
LMArena WebDevNot measured1753Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured
AA Coding Index11.1Not measuredOnly GPT-4.1 Nano measured
LiveCodeBench (Vals AI)42.7%Not measuredOnly GPT-4.1 Nano measured
Terminal-Bench 4 (Vals AI)Not measured55.0%Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured
Vibe Code Bench (Vals AI)Not measured88.9%Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured
Code migration (Vals AI)Not measured65.1%Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured
ProgramBench (Vals AI)Not measured3.0%Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured
IOI (Vals AI)Not measured96.9%Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured
SWE-bench Multimodal (Vals AI)Not measured43.5%Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured
CyberBench (Vals AI)Not measured39.3%Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured
LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run)32.6%Not measuredOnly GPT-4.1 Nano measured
SciCodeNot measured55.8%Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured
Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run)3.8%Not measuredOnly GPT-4.1 Nano measured
FrontierCodeNot measured50.2%Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured
WeirdML19.0%Not measuredOnly GPT-4.1 Nano measured
ALE-BenchNot measured2743.8Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured
LMArena Text: coding13061478GPT-6.1 Sol
LMArena Text: software and IT13051476GPT-6.1 Sol
LMArena WebDev: ReactNot measured1754Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured
LMArena WebDev: HTMLNot measured1800Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured
LMArena WebDev: from an imageNot measured1702Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured
SciCodeNot measured9.2%Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured
Neither model has a result on the other 15 boards here
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index02
Intelligence benchmarks for GPT-4.1 Nano and GPT-6.1 Sol
BenchmarkGPT-4.1 NanoGPT-6.1 SolLeader
AA Intelligence Index7.851.8GPT-6.1 Sol
Epoch Capabilities Index129.5168.4GPT-6.1 Sol
Agentic workDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index20 boards, none shared
Agentic work benchmarks for GPT-4.1 Nano and GPT-6.1 Sol
BenchmarkGPT-4.1 NanoGPT-6.1 SolLeader
Design Arena: agents building web appsNot measured1307Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured
Design Arena: agents building mobile appsNot measured1223Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured
Design Arena: spreadsheetsNot measured1275Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured
LiveBench researchNot measured83.5%Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured
LiveBench browserNot measured88.0%Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured
LiveBench long agenticNot measured73.0%Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured
SREBench (Vals AI)Not measured50.8%Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured
Finance Agent (Vals AI)Not measured52.0%Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured
Tax Agent Bench (Vals AI)Not measured21.8%Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured
Legal Research Bench (Vals AI)Not measured38.5%Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured
Harvey's Legal Agent Benchmark (Vals AI)Not measured6.3%Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured
Excel Modeling Benchmark (Vals AI)Not measured70.8%Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured
BioMysteryBench (Vals AI)Not measured79.6%Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured
Terminal-Bench-Science (Vals AI)Not measured52.9%Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured
Vals Science IndexNot measured59.6%Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured
Robo-bench (Vals AI)Not measured28.3%Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured
τ²-Bench Telecom17.3%Not measuredOnly GPT-4.1 Nano measured
APEX-AgentsNot measured60.0%Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured
SpireClimbNot measured24.7%Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard (BFCL)33.1%Not measuredOnly GPT-4.1 Nano measured
Neither model has a result on the other 21 boards here
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index08
Reasoning benchmarks for GPT-4.1 Nano and GPT-6.1 Sol
BenchmarkGPT-4.1 NanoGPT-6.1 SolLeader
GPQA Diamond50.8%Not measuredOnly GPT-4.1 Nano measured
LiveBench reasoningNot measured92.6%Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured
MysteryMechanism (Vals AI)Not measured46.4%Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured
MMMU Pro (Vals AI)55.0%Not measuredOnly GPT-4.1 Nano measured
GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run)51.2%Not measuredOnly GPT-4.1 Nano measured
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)3.8%52.9%GPT-6.1 Sol
GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run)48.9%95.4%GPT-6.1 Sol
ARC-AGI0.0%98.5%GPT-6.1 Sol
ARC-AGI-20.0%94.2%GPT-6.1 Sol
Chess puzzles0.0%68.0%GPT-6.1 Sol
Mystery game puzzlesNot measured80.0%Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured
EBR-benchNot measured54.3%Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured
LMArena Text: hard prompts12861463GPT-6.1 Sol
LMArena Text: expert12711489GPT-6.1 Sol
LMArena Text: hard prompts in English12931465GPT-6.1 Sol
LMArena Vision: diagramsNot measured1306Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured
LMArena Vision: homeworkNot measured1356Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured
Kagi LLM Benchmark33.3%Not measuredOnly GPT-4.1 Nano measured
Neither model has a result on the other 4 boards here
MathLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index03
Math benchmarks for GPT-4.1 Nano and GPT-6.1 Sol
BenchmarkGPT-4.1 NanoGPT-6.1 SolLeader
AIME26.5%Not measuredOnly GPT-4.1 Nano measured
MATH 500 (Vals AI)80.2%Not measuredOnly GPT-4.1 Nano measured
MGSM (Vals AI)69.3%Not measuredOnly GPT-4.1 Nano measured
AA Math Index24.0Not measuredOnly GPT-4.1 Nano measured
AIME 2025 (Artificial Analysis run)24.0%Not measuredOnly GPT-4.1 Nano measured
OTIS Mock AIME28.9%100.0%GPT-6.1 Sol
FrontierMath, tiers 1 to 3Not measured93.7%Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured
FrontierMath, tier 4Not measured100.0%Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured
ProofBenchNot measured99.0%Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured
MATH level 570.0%Not measuredOnly GPT-4.1 Nano measured
LMArena Text: math12741489GPT-6.1 Sol
LMArena Text: mathematical work12741513GPT-6.1 Sol
Neither model has a result on the other 1 board here
KnowledgeLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index05
Knowledge benchmarks for GPT-4.1 Nano and GPT-6.1 Sol
BenchmarkGPT-4.1 NanoGPT-6.1 SolLeader
MMLU Pro63.5%Not measuredOnly GPT-4.1 Nano measured
LegalBench (Vals AI)61.1%Not measuredOnly GPT-4.1 Nano measured
CorpFin (Vals AI)42.1%Not measuredOnly GPT-4.1 Nano measured
TaxEval (Vals AI)60.8%Not measuredOnly GPT-4.1 Nano measured
MortgageTax (Vals AI)52.8%Not measuredOnly GPT-4.1 Nano measured
MedQA (Vals AI)68.2%Not measuredOnly GPT-4.1 Nano measured
MedCode (Vals AI)Not measured48.8%Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured
MMLU Pro (Artificial Analysis run)65.7%Not measuredOnly GPT-4.1 Nano measured
SimpleQA Verified6.0%73.9%GPT-6.1 Sol
LMArena Text: science12971444GPT-6.1 Sol
LMArena Text: medicine and healthcare12761433GPT-6.1 Sol
LMArena Text: legal and government13001471GPT-6.1 Sol
LMArena Text: business and finance12671445GPT-6.1 Sol
FACTS Benchmark SuiteNot measured75.3%Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured
Neither model has a result on the other 4 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-6.1 Sol
BenchmarkGPT-4.1 NanoGPT-6.1 SolLeader
Design Arena: websites9731321GPT-6.1 Sol
Design Arena: UI components9131322GPT-6.1 Sol
Design Arena: game dev9701392GPT-6.1 Sol
Design Arena: data viz8911281GPT-6.1 Sol
Design Arena: 3D9241460GPT-6.1 Sol
Design Arena: all code categories9621346GPT-6.1 Sol
LiveBench designNot measured82.1%Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured
Neither model has a result on the other 2 boards here
GeneralLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index016
General benchmarks for GPT-4.1 Nano and GPT-6.1 Sol
BenchmarkGPT-4.1 NanoGPT-6.1 SolLeader
Vals IndexNot measured63.9%Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured
LiveBench data analysisNot measured82.7%Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured
Public Benefits Bench (Vals AI)Not measured59.3%Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured
SAGE (Vals AI)Not measured46.5%Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured
MedScribe (Vals AI)Not measured86.5%Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured
IFBench32.0%Not measuredOnly GPT-4.1 Nano measured
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR)20.3%84.0%GPT-6.1 Sol
DTBench52.5%96.5%GPT-6.1 Sol
LMCA5.5%62.8%GPT-6.1 Sol
Fiction.LiveBench25.0%Not measuredOnly GPT-4.1 Nano measured
Furniture assemblyNot measured80.0%Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured
LMArena Text12851443GPT-6.1 Sol
LMArena Text: instruction following12661466GPT-6.1 Sol
LMArena Text: creative writing12601425GPT-6.1 Sol
LMArena Vision10631288GPT-6.1 Sol
LMArena Text: English13031450GPT-6.1 Sol
LMArena Text: non-English12601433GPT-6.1 Sol
LMArena Text: Chinese12701487GPT-6.1 Sol
LMArena Text: German1288Not measuredOnly GPT-4.1 Nano measured
LMArena Text: Japanese1198Not measuredOnly GPT-4.1 Nano measured
LMArena Text: FrenchNot measured1460Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured
LMArena Text: SpanishNot measured1439Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured
LMArena Text: Russian12611457GPT-6.1 Sol
LMArena Text: multi-turn12771442GPT-6.1 Sol
LMArena Text: longer queries12831458GPT-6.1 Sol
LMArena Text: writing and language12611444GPT-6.1 Sol
LMArena Text: entertainment and media12431426GPT-6.1 Sol
LMArena Vision: English11011274GPT-6.1 Sol
LMArena Vision: reading textNot measured1289Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured
LMArena Vision: creative writingNot measured1301Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured
Neither model has a result on the other 16 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-6.1 Sol
BenchmarkGPT-4.1 NanoGPT-6.1 SolLeader
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-6.1 Sol$0.0070Fits 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-6.1 Sol$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-6.1 Sol$0.500Fits 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-6.1 Sol
SpecificationOpenAI GPT-4.1 NanoOpenAI GPT-6.1 Sol
MakerOpenAIOpenAI
WeightsNo public weights listedNo public weights listed
ReleasedApril 14, 2025September 29, 2026
Context window1.05M1.05M
Input $/Mtok$0.10$2.00
Output $/Mtok$0.40$10.00
Coding indexNot benchmarked82.4
Independent measurements behind it05
Cost per solved taskNot computableNot computable
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is GPT-4.1 Nano better than GPT-6.1 Sol for coding?

Only GPT-6.1 Sol has a coding score, 82.4 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 25.0x cheaper ($0.40 vs $10.00 per million).

Which is cheaper, GPT-4.1 Nano or GPT-6.1 Sol?

GPT-4.1 Nano costs $0.10 per million input tokens and $0.40 per million output tokens; GPT-6.1 Sol costs $2.00 and $10.00. Cost per solved task is known for neither of them.

Which has the bigger context window, GPT-4.1 Nano or GPT-6.1 Sol?

GPT-6.1 Sol, with 1.05M tokens against 1.05M.

How many benchmarks is the GPT-4.1 Nano vs GPT-6.1 Sol comparison based on?

42 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-6.1 Sol's on 5. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.

Compare next