Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

GPT-4.1 Nano vs Qwen3.7 Plus

Qwen3.7 Plus leads GPT-4.1 Nano on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index, 25.2 to 7.8, and GPT-4.1 Nano costs 3.2x less per output token ($0.40 vs $1.28 per million). Updated October 22, 2026; 46 benchmarks have a result for both.

Replace GPT-4.1 Nano Replace Qwen3.7 Plus
GPT-4.1 NanoOpenAI
Coding
No data
Overall
24.7
Output $/M
$0.40
0
Qwen3.7 PlusQwen
Coding
33.2
Overall
54.0
Output $/M
$1.28
46
vs boards won of 46 shared

GPT-4.1 Nano or Qwen3.7 Plus: which to pick

Only Qwen3.7 Plus has a coding score, 33.2 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 3.2x cheaper ($0.40 vs $1.28 per million) and a larger context window (1.05M against 1M tokens).

Model AGPT-4.1 NanoOpenAINot benchmarkedNo coding benchmarkNo cost per solved taskModel BQwen3.7 PlusQwen33.2/1002 independent benchmarksNo cost per solved task
Shared results
46
GPT-4.1 Nano only
25
Qwen3.7 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, Qwen3.7 Plus 33.2 from 2 benchmarks.
Widest category
Agentic work, 75.7 points apart on average over 1 shared benchmark.
Widest single gap
τ²-Bench Telecom: GPT-4.1 Nano 17.3% against Qwen3.7 Plus 93.0%, 75.7 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
Output price
GPT-4.1 Nano $0.40 against Qwen3.7 Plus $1.28 per million output tokens, 3.2x apart.
Context window
GPT-4.1 Nano takes 1.05M tokens, Qwen3.7 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 NanoBarsQwen3.7 PlusTies
Coding04
Intelligence02
Agentic work01
Reasoning06
Math03
Knowledge05
Web design06
General019
All shared boards046
CodingLike-for-likeSix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index04
Coding benchmarks for GPT-4.1 Nano and Qwen3.7 Plus
BenchmarkGPT-4.1 NanoQwen3.7 PlusLeader
Aider polyglot8.9%Not measuredOnly GPT-4.1 Nano measured
AA Coding Index11.155.9Qwen3.7 Plus
LiveCodeBench (Vals AI)42.7%Not measuredOnly GPT-4.1 Nano measured
Vibe Code Bench (Vals AI)Not measured46.4%Only Qwen3.7 Plus measured
Code migration (Vals AI)Not measured12.9%Only Qwen3.7 Plus measured
Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals AI)Not measured52.8%Only Qwen3.7 Plus measured
SkillsBench (Vals AI)Not measured54.3%Only Qwen3.7 Plus measured
LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run)32.6%Not measuredOnly GPT-4.1 Nano measured
SciCodeNot measured46.1%Only Qwen3.7 Plus measured
Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run)3.8%47.0%Qwen3.7 Plus
FrontierCodeNot measured10.2%Only Qwen3.7 Plus measured
WeirdML19.0%Not measuredOnly GPT-4.1 Nano measured
LMArena Text: coding13061473Qwen3.7 Plus
LMArena Text: software and IT13051473Qwen3.7 Plus
Neither model has a result on the other 25 boards here
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index02
Intelligence benchmarks for GPT-4.1 Nano and Qwen3.7 Plus
BenchmarkGPT-4.1 NanoQwen3.7 PlusLeader
AA Intelligence Index7.825.2Qwen3.7 Plus
Epoch Capabilities Index129.5147.0Qwen3.7 Plus
Agentic workLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
Agentic work benchmarks for GPT-4.1 Nano and Qwen3.7 Plus
BenchmarkGPT-4.1 NanoQwen3.7 PlusLeader
AA Agentic IndexNot measured17.5Only Qwen3.7 Plus measured
Finance Agent (Vals AI)Not measured38.2%Only Qwen3.7 Plus measured
Tax Agent Bench (Vals AI)Not measured10.5%Only Qwen3.7 Plus measured
Legal Research Bench (Vals AI)Not measured16.4%Only Qwen3.7 Plus measured
Excel Modeling Benchmark (Vals AI)Not measured49.3%Only Qwen3.7 Plus measured
τ²-Bench Telecom17.3%93.0%Qwen3.7 Plus
OSWorld 2.0Not measured2.8%Only Qwen3.7 Plus measured
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard (BFCL)33.1%Not measuredOnly GPT-4.1 Nano measured
Neither model has a result on the other 33 boards here
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index06
Reasoning benchmarks for GPT-4.1 Nano and Qwen3.7 Plus
BenchmarkGPT-4.1 NanoQwen3.7 PlusLeader
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%90.0%Qwen3.7 Plus
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)3.8%35.6%Qwen3.7 Plus
GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run)48.9%87.9%Qwen3.7 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%Not measuredOnly GPT-4.1 Nano measured
Mystery game puzzlesNot measured17.0%Only Qwen3.7 Plus measured
LMArena Text: hard prompts12861460Qwen3.7 Plus
LMArena Text: expert12711466Qwen3.7 Plus
LMArena Text: hard prompts in English12931460Qwen3.7 Plus
LMArena Vision: diagramsNot measured1292Only Qwen3.7 Plus measured
LMArena Vision: homeworkNot measured1295Only Qwen3.7 Plus measured
Kagi LLM Benchmark33.3%Not measuredOnly GPT-4.1 Nano measured
Neither model has a result on the other 7 boards here
MathLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index03
Math benchmarks for GPT-4.1 Nano and Qwen3.7 Plus
BenchmarkGPT-4.1 NanoQwen3.7 PlusLeader
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%93.3%Qwen3.7 Plus
FrontierMath, tiers 1 to 3Not measured34.4%Only Qwen3.7 Plus measured
MATH level 570.0%Not measuredOnly GPT-4.1 Nano measured
LMArena Text: math12741467Qwen3.7 Plus
LMArena Text: mathematical work12741470Qwen3.7 Plus
Neither model has a result on the other 3 boards here
KnowledgeLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index05
Knowledge benchmarks for GPT-4.1 Nano and Qwen3.7 Plus
BenchmarkGPT-4.1 NanoQwen3.7 PlusLeader
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%66.2%Qwen3.7 Plus
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: science12971464Qwen3.7 Plus
LMArena Text: medicine and healthcare12761464Qwen3.7 Plus
LMArena Text: legal and government13001451Qwen3.7 Plus
LMArena Text: business and finance12671435Qwen3.7 Plus
Neither model has a result on the other 6 boards here
Web designLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index06
Web design benchmarks for GPT-4.1 Nano and Qwen3.7 Plus
BenchmarkGPT-4.1 NanoQwen3.7 PlusLeader
Design Arena: websites9721269Qwen3.7 Plus
Design Arena: UI components9131258Qwen3.7 Plus
Design Arena: game dev9701261Qwen3.7 Plus
Design Arena: data viz8911276Qwen3.7 Plus
Design Arena: 3D9241238Qwen3.7 Plus
Design Arena: all code categories9621269Qwen3.7 Plus
Design Arena: SVGNot measured1208Only Qwen3.7 Plus measured
Design Arena: ASCII artNot measured1143Only Qwen3.7 Plus 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 Qwen3.7 Plus
BenchmarkGPT-4.1 NanoQwen3.7 PlusLeader
SAGE (Vals AI)Not measured39.3%Only Qwen3.7 Plus measured
Vals Multimodal IndexNot measured53.9%Only Qwen3.7 Plus measured
IFBench32.0%78.0%Qwen3.7 Plus
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR)20.3%73.0%Qwen3.7 Plus
DTBench52.5%84.0%Qwen3.7 Plus
LMCA5.5%37.6%Qwen3.7 Plus
Fiction.LiveBench25.0%Not measuredOnly GPT-4.1 Nano measured
LMArena Text12851454Qwen3.7 Plus
LMArena Text: instruction following12661439Qwen3.7 Plus
LMArena Text: creative writing12601438Qwen3.7 Plus
LMArena Vision10631278Qwen3.7 Plus
LMArena Text: English13031458Qwen3.7 Plus
LMArena Text: non-English12601445Qwen3.7 Plus
LMArena Text: Chinese12701509Qwen3.7 Plus
LMArena Text: German12881471Qwen3.7 Plus
LMArena Text: Japanese11981412Qwen3.7 Plus
LMArena Text: KoreanNot measured1413Only Qwen3.7 Plus measured
LMArena Text: FrenchNot measured1472Only Qwen3.7 Plus measured
LMArena Text: SpanishNot measured1457Only Qwen3.7 Plus measured
LMArena Text: Russian12611457Qwen3.7 Plus
LMArena Text: PolishNot measured1449Only Qwen3.7 Plus measured
LMArena Text: multi-turn12771459Qwen3.7 Plus
LMArena Text: longer queries12831454Qwen3.7 Plus
LMArena Text: writing and language12611437Qwen3.7 Plus
LMArena Text: entertainment and media12431422Qwen3.7 Plus
LMArena Vision: English11011280Qwen3.7 Plus
LMArena Vision: ChineseNot measured1332Only Qwen3.7 Plus measured
LMArena Vision: reading textNot measured1288Only Qwen3.7 Plus measured
LMArena Vision: humorNot measured1261Only Qwen3.7 Plus measured
LMArena Vision: creative writingNot measured1258Only Qwen3.7 Plus measured
LMArena DocumentNot measured1444Only Qwen3.7 Plus measured
Neither model has a result on the other 15 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 Qwen3.7 Plus
BenchmarkGPT-4.1 NanoQwen3.7 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
Qwen3.7 Plus$0.0010Fits 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
Qwen3.7 Plus$0.020Fits 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
Qwen3.7 Plus$0.077Fits 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 Qwen3.7 Plus
SpecificationOpenAI GPT-4.1 NanoQwen3.7 Plus
MakerOpenAIQwen
WeightsNo public weights listedNo public weights listed
ReleasedApril 14, 2025June 3, 2026
Context window1.05M1M
Input $/Mtok$0.10$0.32
Output $/Mtok$0.40$1.28
Coding indexNot benchmarked33.2
Independent measurements behind it02
Cost per solved taskNot computableNot computable
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is GPT-4.1 Nano better than Qwen3.7 Plus for coding?

Only Qwen3.7 Plus has a coding score, 33.2 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 3.2x cheaper ($0.40 vs $1.28 per million) and a larger context window (1.05M against 1M tokens).

Which is cheaper, GPT-4.1 Nano or Qwen3.7 Plus?

GPT-4.1 Nano costs $0.10 per million input tokens and $0.40 per million output tokens; Qwen3.7 Plus costs $0.32 and $1.28. Cost per solved task is known for neither of them.

Which has the bigger context window, GPT-4.1 Nano or Qwen3.7 Plus?

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

How many benchmarks is the GPT-4.1 Nano vs Qwen3.7 Plus comparison based on?

46 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 Qwen3.7 Plus's on 2. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.

Compare next