Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

GPT-4.1 Nano vs Qwen3.6 Plus

Qwen3.6 Plus leads GPT-4.1 Nano on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index, 27.0 to 7.8, and GPT-4.1 Nano costs 4.9x less per output token ($0.40 vs $1.95 per million). Updated October 22, 2026; 54 benchmarks have a result for both.

GPT-4.1 NanoOpenAI
Coding
No data
Overall
24.7
Output $/M
$0.40
0
Qwen3.6 PlusQwen
Coding
44.1
Overall
56.2
Output $/M
$1.95
54
vs boards won of 54 shared

GPT-4.1 Nano or Qwen3.6 Plus: which to pick

Only Qwen3.6 Plus has a coding score, 44.1 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 4.9x cheaper ($0.40 vs $1.95 per million) and a larger context window (1.05M against 1M tokens).

Shared results
54
GPT-4.1 Nano only
17
Qwen3.6 Plus only
29
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, Qwen3.6 Plus 44.1 from 3 benchmarks.
Widest category
Agentic work, 80.4 points apart on average over 1 shared benchmark.
Widest single gap
τ²-Bench Telecom: GPT-4.1 Nano 17.3% against Qwen3.6 Plus 97.7%, 80.4 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
Output price
GPT-4.1 Nano $0.40 against Qwen3.6 Plus $1.95 per million output tokens, 4.9x apart.
Context window
GPT-4.1 Nano takes 1.05M tokens, Qwen3.6 Plus 1M.

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 NanoBarsQwen3.6 PlusTies
Coding05
Intelligence02
Agentic work01
Reasoning09
Math04
Knowledge010
Web design06
General017
All shared boards054
CodingLike-for-likeSix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index05
Coding benchmarks for GPT-4.1 Nano and Qwen3.6 Plus
BenchmarkGPT-4.1 NanoQwen3.6 PlusLeader
Aider polyglot8.9%Not measuredOnly GPT-4.1 Nano measured
LMArena WebDevNot measured1461Only Qwen3.6 Plus measured
AA Coding Index11.154.5Qwen3.6 Plus
LiveCodeBench (Vals AI)42.7%86.0%Qwen3.6 Plus
SWE-bench Verified (Vals AI)Not measured73.4%Only Qwen3.6 Plus measured
Vibe Code Bench (Vals AI)Not measured25.6%Only Qwen3.6 Plus measured
Code migration (Vals AI)Not measured11.1%Only Qwen3.6 Plus measured
ProgramBench (Vals AI)Not measured0.0%Only Qwen3.6 Plus measured
Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals AI)Not measured53.2%Only Qwen3.6 Plus measured
LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run)32.6%Not measuredOnly GPT-4.1 Nano measured
Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run)3.8%43.9%Qwen3.6 Plus
WeirdML19.0%Not measuredOnly GPT-4.1 Nano measured
ALE-BenchNot measured670.1Only Qwen3.6 Plus measured
LMArena Text: coding13061467Qwen3.6 Plus
LMArena Text: software and IT13051462Qwen3.6 Plus
LMArena WebDev: ReactNot measured1454Only Qwen3.6 Plus measured
LMArena WebDev: HTMLNot measured1463Only Qwen3.6 Plus measured
LMArena WebDev: from an imageNot measured1472Only Qwen3.6 Plus measured
Neither model has a result on the other 21 boards here
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index02
Intelligence benchmarks for GPT-4.1 Nano and Qwen3.6 Plus
BenchmarkGPT-4.1 NanoQwen3.6 PlusLeader
AA Intelligence Index7.827.0Qwen3.6 Plus
Epoch Capabilities Index129.5147.3Qwen3.6 Plus
Agentic workLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
Agentic work benchmarks for GPT-4.1 Nano and Qwen3.6 Plus
BenchmarkGPT-4.1 NanoQwen3.6 PlusLeader
Finance Agent (Vals AI)Not measured40.9%Only Qwen3.6 Plus measured
Tax Agent Bench (Vals AI)Not measured7.7%Only Qwen3.6 Plus measured
Legal Research Bench (Vals AI)Not measured14.9%Only Qwen3.6 Plus measured
Excel Modeling Benchmark (Vals AI)Not measured32.9%Only Qwen3.6 Plus measured
τ²-Bench Telecom17.3%97.7%Qwen3.6 Plus
Vending-Bench 2Not measured$5,115Only Qwen3.6 Plus 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 index09
Reasoning benchmarks for GPT-4.1 Nano and Qwen3.6 Plus
BenchmarkGPT-4.1 NanoQwen3.6 PlusLeader
GPQA Diamond50.8%87.4%Qwen3.6 Plus
MMMU Pro (Vals AI)55.0%84.2%Qwen3.6 Plus
GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run)51.2%88.2%Qwen3.6 Plus
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)3.8%27.8%Qwen3.6 Plus
GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run)48.9%88.4%Qwen3.6 Plus
ARC-AGI0.0%Not measuredOnly GPT-4.1 Nano measured
ARC-AGI-20.0%Not measuredOnly GPT-4.1 Nano measured
Chess puzzles0.0%14.0%Qwen3.6 Plus
Mystery game puzzlesNot measured12.0%Only Qwen3.6 Plus measured
LMArena Text: hard prompts12861448Qwen3.6 Plus
LMArena Text: expert12711454Qwen3.6 Plus
LMArena Text: hard prompts in English12931455Qwen3.6 Plus
Kagi LLM Benchmark33.3%Not measuredOnly GPT-4.1 Nano measured
Neither model has a result on the other 9 boards here
MathLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index04
Math benchmarks for GPT-4.1 Nano and Qwen3.6 Plus
BenchmarkGPT-4.1 NanoQwen3.6 PlusLeader
AIME26.5%94.6%Qwen3.6 Plus
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%93.3%Qwen3.6 Plus
FrontierMath, tiers 1 to 3Not measured38.2%Only Qwen3.6 Plus measured
MATH level 570.0%Not measuredOnly GPT-4.1 Nano measured
LMArena Text: math12741449Qwen3.6 Plus
LMArena Text: mathematical work12741448Qwen3.6 Plus
Neither model has a result on the other 3 boards here
KnowledgeLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index010
Knowledge benchmarks for GPT-4.1 Nano and Qwen3.6 Plus
BenchmarkGPT-4.1 NanoQwen3.6 PlusLeader
MMLU Pro63.5%87.7%Qwen3.6 Plus
LegalBench (Vals AI)61.1%84.2%Qwen3.6 Plus
CaseLaw (Vals AI)Not measured51.5%Only Qwen3.6 Plus measured
CorpFin (Vals AI)42.1%61.9%Qwen3.6 Plus
TaxEval (Vals AI)60.8%74.7%Qwen3.6 Plus
MortgageTax (Vals AI)52.8%68.0%Qwen3.6 Plus
MedQA (Vals AI)68.2%Not measuredOnly GPT-4.1 Nano measured
MedCode (Vals AI)Not measured36.9%Only Qwen3.6 Plus measured
MMLU Pro (Artificial Analysis run)65.7%Not measuredOnly GPT-4.1 Nano measured
SimpleQA Verified6.0%44.1%Qwen3.6 Plus
LMArena Text: science12971439Qwen3.6 Plus
LMArena Text: medicine and healthcare12761442Qwen3.6 Plus
LMArena Text: legal and government13001437Qwen3.6 Plus
LMArena Text: business and finance12671430Qwen3.6 Plus
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 Qwen3.6 Plus
BenchmarkGPT-4.1 NanoQwen3.6 PlusLeader
Design Arena: websites9721243Qwen3.6 Plus
Design Arena: UI components9131230Qwen3.6 Plus
Design Arena: game dev9701211Qwen3.6 Plus
Design Arena: data viz8911228Qwen3.6 Plus
Design Arena: 3D9241202Qwen3.6 Plus
Design Arena: all code categories9621236Qwen3.6 Plus
Design Arena: SVGNot measured1161Only Qwen3.6 Plus measured
Design Arena: ASCII artNot measured1113Only Qwen3.6 Plus measured
Neither model has a result on the other 1 board here
GeneralLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index017
General benchmarks for GPT-4.1 Nano and Qwen3.6 Plus
BenchmarkGPT-4.1 NanoQwen3.6 PlusLeader
SAGE (Vals AI)Not measured44.9%Only Qwen3.6 Plus measured
MedScribe (Vals AI)Not measured77.0%Only Qwen3.6 Plus measured
Vals Multimodal IndexNot measured51.5%Only Qwen3.6 Plus measured
IFBench32.0%75.2%Qwen3.6 Plus
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR)20.3%78.3%Qwen3.6 Plus
DTBench52.5%81.9%Qwen3.6 Plus
LMCA5.5%33.1%Qwen3.6 Plus
Fiction.LiveBench25.0%Not measuredOnly GPT-4.1 Nano measured
CL-benchNot measured20.3%Only Qwen3.6 Plus measured
LMArena Text12851436Qwen3.6 Plus
LMArena Text: instruction following12661424Qwen3.6 Plus
LMArena Text: creative writing12601404Qwen3.6 Plus
LMArena Vision1063Not measuredOnly GPT-4.1 Nano measured
LMArena Text: English13031445Qwen3.6 Plus
LMArena Text: non-English12601424Qwen3.6 Plus
LMArena Text: Chinese12701477Qwen3.6 Plus
LMArena Text: German12881451Qwen3.6 Plus
LMArena Text: Japanese11981390Qwen3.6 Plus
LMArena Text: KoreanNot measured1379Only Qwen3.6 Plus measured
LMArena Text: FrenchNot measured1455Only Qwen3.6 Plus measured
LMArena Text: SpanishNot measured1432Only Qwen3.6 Plus measured
LMArena Text: Russian12611434Qwen3.6 Plus
LMArena Text: PolishNot measured1433Only Qwen3.6 Plus measured
LMArena Text: multi-turn12771438Qwen3.6 Plus
LMArena Text: longer queries12831439Qwen3.6 Plus
LMArena Text: writing and language12611418Qwen3.6 Plus
LMArena Text: entertainment and media12431402Qwen3.6 Plus
LMArena Vision: English1101Not measuredOnly GPT-4.1 Nano measured
Neither model has a result on the other 18 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 Qwen3.6 Plus
BenchmarkGPT-4.1 NanoQwen3.6 PlusLeader
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
Qwen3.6 Plus$0.0013Fits 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
Qwen3.6 Plus$0.022Fits 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
Qwen3.6 Plus$0.085Fits 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 Qwen3.6 Plus
SpecificationOpenAI GPT-4.1 NanoQwen3.6 Plus
MakerOpenAIQwen
WeightsNo public weights listedNo public weights listed
ReleasedApril 14, 2025April 2, 2026
Context window1.05M1M
Input $/Mtok$0.10$0.325
Output $/Mtok$0.40$1.95
Coding indexNot benchmarked44.1
Independent measurements behind it03
Cost per solved taskNot computable$1.19
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is GPT-4.1 Nano better than Qwen3.6 Plus for coding?

Only Qwen3.6 Plus has a coding score, 44.1 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 4.9x cheaper ($0.40 vs $1.95 per million) and a larger context window (1.05M against 1M tokens).

Which is cheaper, GPT-4.1 Nano or Qwen3.6 Plus?

GPT-4.1 Nano costs $0.10 per million input tokens and $0.40 per million output tokens; Qwen3.6 Plus costs $0.325 and $1.95. Cost per solved task is known for Qwen3.6 Plus only.

Which has the bigger context window, GPT-4.1 Nano or Qwen3.6 Plus?

GPT-4.1 Nano, with 1.05M tokens against 1M.

How many benchmarks is the GPT-4.1 Nano vs Qwen3.6 Plus comparison based on?

54 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 Qwen3.6 Plus's on 3. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.

Compare next