Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

GPT-4.1 Nano vs Nemotron 3.5 Lightning

Nemotron 3.5 Lightning leads GPT-4.1 Nano on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index, 12.9 to 7.8, and Nemotron 3.5 Lightning costs 2.7x less per output token ($0.147 vs $0.40 per million). Updated October 22, 2026; 6 benchmarks have a result for both.

GPT-4.1 NanoOpenAI
Coding
No data
Overall
24.7
Output $/M
$0.40
0
Nemotron 3.5 LightningNVIDIA
Coding
22.6
Overall
No data
Output $/M
$0.147
6
vs boards won of 6 shared

GPT-4.1 Nano or Nemotron 3.5 Lightning: which to pick

Only Nemotron 3.5 Lightning has a coding score, 22.6 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 a larger context window (1.05M against 262K tokens).

Shared results
6
GPT-4.1 Nano only
65
Nemotron 3.5 Lightning only
14
Like-for-like categories
5 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, Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 22.6 from 2 benchmarks.
Widest category
General, 40.0 points apart on average over 1 shared benchmark.
Widest single gap
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR): GPT-4.1 Nano 20.3% against Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 60.3%, 40.0 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
Output price
GPT-4.1 Nano $0.40 against Nemotron 3.5 Lightning $0.147 per million output tokens, 2.7x apart.
Context window
GPT-4.1 Nano takes 1.05M tokens, Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 262K.

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 NanoBarsNemotron 3.5 LightningTies
Coding01
Intelligence01
Reasoning02
Knowledge01
General01
All shared boards06
CodingLike-for-likeSix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index01
Coding benchmarks for GPT-4.1 Nano and Nemotron 3.5 Lightning
BenchmarkGPT-4.1 NanoNemotron 3.5 LightningLeader
Aider polyglot8.9%Not measuredOnly GPT-4.1 Nano measured
AA Coding Index11.126.8Nemotron 3.5 Lightning
LiveCodeBench (Vals AI)42.7%Not measuredOnly GPT-4.1 Nano measured
SWE-bench Verified (Vals AI)Not measured52.8%Only Nemotron 3.5 Lightning measured
Vibe Code Bench (Vals AI)Not measured0.0%Only Nemotron 3.5 Lightning measured
Code migration (Vals AI)Not measured3.0%Only Nemotron 3.5 Lightning measured
ProgramBench (Vals AI)Not measured0.0%Only Nemotron 3.5 Lightning measured
Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals AI)Not measured10.9%Only Nemotron 3.5 Lightning measured
CyberBench (Vals AI)Not measured29.5%Only Nemotron 3.5 Lightning measured
LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run)32.6%Not measuredOnly GPT-4.1 Nano measured
SciCodeNot measured32.1%Only Nemotron 3.5 Lightning measured
Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run)3.8%Not measuredOnly GPT-4.1 Nano measured
WeirdML19.0%Not measuredOnly GPT-4.1 Nano measured
ALE-BenchNot measured769.2Only Nemotron 3.5 Lightning measured
LMArena Text: coding1306Not measuredOnly GPT-4.1 Nano measured
LMArena Text: software and IT1305Not measuredOnly GPT-4.1 Nano measured
Neither model has a result on the other 23 boards here
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
Intelligence benchmarks for GPT-4.1 Nano and Nemotron 3.5 Lightning
BenchmarkGPT-4.1 NanoNemotron 3.5 LightningLeader
AA Intelligence Index7.812.9Nemotron 3.5 Lightning
Epoch Capabilities Index129.5Not measuredOnly GPT-4.1 Nano measured
Agentic workDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index7 boards, none shared
Agentic work benchmarks for GPT-4.1 Nano and Nemotron 3.5 Lightning
BenchmarkGPT-4.1 NanoNemotron 3.5 LightningLeader
AA Agentic IndexNot measured3.5Only Nemotron 3.5 Lightning measured
Finance Agent (Vals AI)Not measured18.5%Only Nemotron 3.5 Lightning measured
Tax Agent Bench (Vals AI)Not measured2.6%Only Nemotron 3.5 Lightning measured
Legal Research Bench (Vals AI)Not measured2.9%Only Nemotron 3.5 Lightning measured
Excel Modeling Benchmark (Vals AI)Not measured17.0%Only Nemotron 3.5 Lightning measured
τ²-Bench Telecom17.3%Not measuredOnly GPT-4.1 Nano measured
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard (BFCL)33.1%Not measuredOnly GPT-4.1 Nano measured
Neither model has a result on the other 34 boards here
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index02
Reasoning benchmarks for GPT-4.1 Nano and Nemotron 3.5 Lightning
BenchmarkGPT-4.1 NanoNemotron 3.5 LightningLeader
GPQA Diamond50.8%Not measuredOnly GPT-4.1 Nano measured
MMMU Pro (Vals AI)55.0%Not measuredOnly GPT-4.1 Nano measured
GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run)51.2%74.3%Nemotron 3.5 Lightning
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)3.8%10.6%Nemotron 3.5 Lightning
GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run)48.9%Not measuredOnly GPT-4.1 Nano measured
ARC-AGI0.0%Not measuredOnly GPT-4.1 Nano measured
ARC-AGI-20.0%Not measuredOnly GPT-4.1 Nano measured
Chess puzzles0.0%Not measuredOnly GPT-4.1 Nano measured
LMArena Text: hard prompts1286Not measuredOnly GPT-4.1 Nano measured
LMArena Text: expert1271Not measuredOnly GPT-4.1 Nano measured
LMArena Text: hard prompts in English1293Not measuredOnly GPT-4.1 Nano measured
Kagi LLM Benchmark33.3%Not measuredOnly GPT-4.1 Nano measured
Neither model has a result on the other 10 boards here
MathDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index9 boards, none shared
Math benchmarks for GPT-4.1 Nano and Nemotron 3.5 Lightning
BenchmarkGPT-4.1 NanoNemotron 3.5 LightningLeader
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%Not measuredOnly GPT-4.1 Nano measured
MATH level 570.0%Not measuredOnly GPT-4.1 Nano measured
LMArena Text: math1274Not measuredOnly GPT-4.1 Nano measured
LMArena Text: mathematical work1274Not measuredOnly 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
Knowledge benchmarks for GPT-4.1 Nano and Nemotron 3.5 Lightning
BenchmarkGPT-4.1 NanoNemotron 3.5 LightningLeader
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%54.2%Nemotron 3.5 Lightning
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
MMLU Pro (Artificial Analysis run)65.7%Not measuredOnly GPT-4.1 Nano measured
SimpleQA Verified6.0%Not measuredOnly GPT-4.1 Nano measured
LMArena Text: science1297Not measuredOnly GPT-4.1 Nano measured
LMArena Text: medicine and healthcare1276Not measuredOnly GPT-4.1 Nano measured
LMArena Text: legal and government1300Not measuredOnly GPT-4.1 Nano measured
LMArena Text: business and finance1267Not measuredOnly GPT-4.1 Nano measured
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 GPT-4.1 Nano and Nemotron 3.5 Lightning
BenchmarkGPT-4.1 NanoNemotron 3.5 LightningLeader
Design Arena: websites973Not measuredOnly GPT-4.1 Nano measured
Design Arena: UI components913Not measuredOnly GPT-4.1 Nano measured
Design Arena: game dev970Not measuredOnly GPT-4.1 Nano measured
Design Arena: data viz891Not measuredOnly GPT-4.1 Nano measured
Design Arena: 3D924Not measuredOnly GPT-4.1 Nano measured
Design Arena: all code categories962Not measuredOnly 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 index01
General benchmarks for GPT-4.1 Nano and Nemotron 3.5 Lightning
BenchmarkGPT-4.1 NanoNemotron 3.5 LightningLeader
MedScribe (Vals AI)Not measured4.3%Only Nemotron 3.5 Lightning measured
IFBench32.0%Not measuredOnly GPT-4.1 Nano measured
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR)20.3%60.3%Nemotron 3.5 Lightning
DTBench52.5%Not measuredOnly GPT-4.1 Nano measured
LMCA5.5%Not measuredOnly GPT-4.1 Nano measured
Fiction.LiveBench25.0%Not measuredOnly GPT-4.1 Nano measured
LMArena Text1285Not measuredOnly GPT-4.1 Nano measured
LMArena Text: instruction following1266Not measuredOnly GPT-4.1 Nano measured
LMArena Text: creative writing1260Not measuredOnly GPT-4.1 Nano measured
LMArena Vision1063Not measuredOnly GPT-4.1 Nano measured
LMArena Text: English1303Not measuredOnly GPT-4.1 Nano measured
LMArena Text: non-English1260Not measuredOnly GPT-4.1 Nano measured
LMArena Text: Chinese1270Not measuredOnly GPT-4.1 Nano measured
LMArena Text: German1288Not measuredOnly GPT-4.1 Nano measured
LMArena Text: Japanese1198Not measuredOnly GPT-4.1 Nano measured
LMArena Text: Russian1261Not measuredOnly GPT-4.1 Nano measured
LMArena Text: multi-turn1277Not measuredOnly GPT-4.1 Nano measured
LMArena Text: longer queries1283Not measuredOnly GPT-4.1 Nano measured
LMArena Text: writing and language1261Not measuredOnly GPT-4.1 Nano measured
LMArena Text: entertainment and media1243Not measuredOnly GPT-4.1 Nano measured
LMArena Vision: English1101Not measuredOnly GPT-4.1 Nano measured
Neither model has a result on the other 25 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 Nemotron 3.5 Lightning
BenchmarkGPT-4.1 NanoNemotron 3.5 LightningLeader
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
Nemotron 3.5 Lightning$0.0001Fits in one request

Nemotron 3.5 Lightning costs less

Repository review

50K input + 3K output tokens

GPT-4.1 Nano$0.0062Fits in one request
Nemotron 3.5 Lightning$0.0031Fits in one request

Nemotron 3.5 Lightning costs less

Agent loop

200K input + 10K output tokens

GPT-4.1 Nano$0.024Fits in one request
Nemotron 3.5 Lightning$0.012Fits in one request

Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 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 Nemotron 3.5 Lightning
SpecificationOpenAI GPT-4.1 NanoNVIDIA Nemotron 3.5 Lightning
MakerOpenAINVIDIA
WeightsNo public weights listedOpen weights
ReleasedApril 14, 2025August 11, 2026
Context window1.05M262K
Input $/Mtok$0.10$0.0534
Output $/Mtok$0.40$0.147
Coding indexNot benchmarked22.6
Independent measurements behind it02
Cost per solved taskNot computable$0.06
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is GPT-4.1 Nano better than Nemotron 3.5 Lightning for coding?

Only Nemotron 3.5 Lightning has a coding score, 22.6 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 a larger context window (1.05M against 262K tokens).

Which is cheaper, GPT-4.1 Nano or Nemotron 3.5 Lightning?

GPT-4.1 Nano costs $0.10 per million input tokens and $0.40 per million output tokens; Nemotron 3.5 Lightning costs $0.0534 and $0.147. Cost per solved task is known for Nemotron 3.5 Lightning only.

Which has the bigger context window, GPT-4.1 Nano or Nemotron 3.5 Lightning?

GPT-4.1 Nano, with 1.05M tokens against 262K.

How many benchmarks is the GPT-4.1 Nano vs Nemotron 3.5 Lightning comparison based on?

6 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 Nemotron 3.5 Lightning's on 2. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.

Compare next