Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

GPT-4o-mini vs GPT-5.1-Codex-Max

Updated October 21, 2026. 1 benchmarks have a result for both. Coding is ranked on the Vibe Coding Index; every other board is shown as published.

GPT-4o-miniOpenAI
Coding
No data
Overall
6.7
Output $/M
$0.60
0
GPT-5.1-Codex-MaxOpenAI
Coding
No data
Overall
No data
Output $/M
$10.00
1
vs boards won of 1 shared

Decision reading

Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding.

GPT-4o-mini has the edge where output tokens cost 16.7x less, and where the benchmark that matters is LiveCodeBench (Vals AI), where it leads.

Shared results
1
GPT-4o-mini only
26
GPT-5.1-Codex-Max only
5
Like-for-like categories
1 of 9

Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results only one model has describe coverage, not superiority.

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-4o-mini not benchmarked, GPT-5.1-Codex-Max not benchmarked.
Widest category
Coding, 57.1 points apart on average over 1 shared benchmark.
Widest single gap
LiveCodeBench (Vals AI): GPT-4o-mini 26.4% against GPT-5.1-Codex-Max 83.6%, 57.1 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
Output price
GPT-4o-mini $0.60 against GPT-5.1-Codex-Max $10.00 per million output tokens, 16.7x apart.
Context window
GPT-4o-mini takes 128K tokens, GPT-5.1-Codex-Max 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-4o-miniBarsGPT-5.1-Codex-MaxTies
Coding01
All shared boards01
CodingLike-for-likeSix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index01
Coding benchmarks for GPT-4o-mini and GPT-5.1-Codex-Max
BenchmarkGPT-4o-miniGPT-5.1-Codex-MaxLeader
AA Coding Index11.4Not measuredOnly GPT-4o-mini measured
LiveCodeBench (Vals AI)26.4%83.6%GPT-5.1-Codex-Max
Vibe Code Bench (Vals AI)Not measured22.2%Only GPT-5.1-Codex-Max measured
LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run)23.4%Not measuredOnly GPT-4o-mini measured
Terminal-BenchNot measured60.4%Only GPT-5.1-Codex-Max measured
ALE-BenchNot measured1228.3Only GPT-5.1-Codex-Max measured
Neither model has a result on the other 32 boards here
IntelligenceDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index2 boards, none shared
Intelligence benchmarks for GPT-4o-mini and GPT-5.1-Codex-Max
BenchmarkGPT-4o-miniGPT-5.1-Codex-MaxLeader
AA Intelligence Index6.7Not measuredOnly GPT-4o-mini measured
Epoch Capabilities Index126.5Not measuredOnly GPT-4o-mini measured
Agentic workDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index1 board, none shared
Agentic work benchmarks for GPT-4o-mini and GPT-5.1-Codex-Max
BenchmarkGPT-4o-miniGPT-5.1-Codex-MaxLeader
METR time horizonsNot measured70.8%Only GPT-5.1-Codex-Max measured
Neither model has a result on the other 38 boards here
ReasoningDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index5 boards, none shared
Reasoning benchmarks for GPT-4o-mini and GPT-5.1-Codex-Max
BenchmarkGPT-4o-miniGPT-5.1-Codex-MaxLeader
GPQA Diamond44.2%Not measuredOnly GPT-4o-mini measured
MMMU Pro (Vals AI)56.6%Not measuredOnly GPT-4o-mini measured
GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run)42.6%Not measuredOnly GPT-4o-mini measured
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)4.2%Not measuredOnly GPT-4o-mini measured
ARC-AGI-20.0%Not measuredOnly GPT-4o-mini measured
Neither model has a result on the other 16 boards here
MathDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index7 boards, none shared
Math benchmarks for GPT-4o-mini and GPT-5.1-Codex-Max
BenchmarkGPT-4o-miniGPT-5.1-Codex-MaxLeader
AIME11.5%Not measuredOnly GPT-4o-mini measured
MATH 500 (Vals AI)72.6%Not measuredOnly GPT-4o-mini measured
MGSM (Vals AI)86.2%Not measuredOnly GPT-4o-mini measured
AA Math Index14.7Not measuredOnly GPT-4o-mini measured
AIME 2025 (Artificial Analysis run)14.7%Not measuredOnly GPT-4o-mini measured
ProofBenchNot measured9.0%Only GPT-5.1-Codex-Max measured
GSM8K91.3%Not measuredOnly GPT-4o-mini measured
Neither model has a result on the other 6 boards here
KnowledgeDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index7 boards, none shared
Knowledge benchmarks for GPT-4o-mini and GPT-5.1-Codex-Max
BenchmarkGPT-4o-miniGPT-5.1-Codex-MaxLeader
MMLU Pro62.7%Not measuredOnly GPT-4o-mini measured
CorpFin (Vals AI)45.5%Not measuredOnly GPT-4o-mini measured
TaxEval (Vals AI)60.5%Not measuredOnly GPT-4o-mini measured
MortgageTax (Vals AI)54.5%Not measuredOnly GPT-4o-mini measured
MedQA (Vals AI)72.4%Not measuredOnly GPT-4o-mini measured
MMLU Pro (Artificial Analysis run)64.8%Not measuredOnly GPT-4o-mini measured
MMLU81.8%Not measuredOnly GPT-4o-mini measured
Neither model has a result on the other 10 boards here
Web designNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
Web design benchmarks for GPT-4o-mini and GPT-5.1-Codex-Max
BenchmarkGPT-4o-miniGPT-5.1-Codex-MaxLeader
Neither model has a result on 9 boards here
GeneralDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index4 boards, none shared
General benchmarks for GPT-4o-mini and GPT-5.1-Codex-Max
BenchmarkGPT-4o-miniGPT-5.1-Codex-MaxLeader
IFBench31.0%Not measuredOnly GPT-4o-mini measured
DTBench54.4%Not measuredOnly GPT-4o-mini measured
LMCA10.4%Not measuredOnly GPT-4o-mini measured
PIQA88.7%Not measuredOnly GPT-4o-mini measured
Neither model has a result on the other 42 boards here
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
Image generation benchmarks for GPT-4o-mini and GPT-5.1-Codex-Max
BenchmarkGPT-4o-miniGPT-5.1-Codex-MaxLeader
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-4o-mini$0.0004Fits in one request
GPT-5.1-Codex-Max$0.0063Fits in one request

GPT-4o-mini costs less

Repository review

50K input + 3K output tokens

GPT-4o-mini$0.0093Fits in one request
GPT-5.1-Codex-Max$0.092Fits in one request

GPT-4o-mini costs less

Agent loop

200K input + 10K output tokens

GPT-4o-mini$0.036Exceeds the context window
GPT-5.1-Codex-Max$0.350Fits in one request

GPT-4o-mini 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-4o-mini and GPT-5.1-Codex-Max
SpecificationOpenAI GPT-4o-miniOpenAI GPT-5.1-Codex-Max
MakerOpenAIOpenAI
WeightsNo public weights listedNo public weights listed
ReleasedJuly 18, 2024December 4, 2025
Context window128K400K
Input $/Mtok$0.15$1.25
Output $/Mtok$0.60$10.00
Coding indexNot benchmarkedNot benchmarked
Independent measurements behind it01
Cost per solved taskNot computableNot computable
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is GPT-4o-mini better than GPT-5.1-Codex-Max for coding?

Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. GPT-4o-mini has the edge where output tokens cost 16.7x less, and where the benchmark that matters is LiveCodeBench (Vals AI), where it leads.

Which is cheaper, GPT-4o-mini or GPT-5.1-Codex-Max?

GPT-4o-mini costs $0.15 per million input tokens and $0.60 per million output tokens; GPT-5.1-Codex-Max costs $1.25 and $10.00. Cost per solved task is known for neither of them.

Which has the bigger context window, GPT-4o-mini or GPT-5.1-Codex-Max?

GPT-5.1-Codex-Max, with 400K tokens against 128K.

How many benchmarks is the GPT-4o-mini vs GPT-5.1-Codex-Max comparison based on?

1 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 21, 2026. GPT-4o-mini's coding index rests on 0 independent benchmarks and GPT-5.1-Codex-Max's on 1. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.

Compare next