GPT-4.1 nano vs o3
Wins 0 of 7 areas
—
Wins 7 of 7 areas
Coding · Agents · Reasoning · Facts · Images and charts · Long documents · Following instructions
o3 is the stronger all-rounder.GPT-4.1 nano is cheaper.
Scores updated · 31 tests both models report · How we compare
Where each one wins
Tests won in each of the seven areas where both have results. Each piece is one test, so a longer bar means more evidence; grey means the two scored within a point of each other.
- ReasoningHard problems that need careful thinking04o34 of 4 tests
- Images and chartsUnderstanding pictures, charts and video04o34 of 4 tests
- CodingWriting and fixing software02o32 of 2 tests
- Following instructionsDoing exactly what it is asked02o32 of 2 tests
- FactsGetting facts right instead of making them up12o32 of 3 tests
- AgentsCarrying out multi-step tasks on its own01o31 of 1 test
- Long documentsFinding answers in very long texts01o31 of 1 test
Agents and long documents rest on a single test each.
What it costs
Prices per million tokens, roughly 750,000 words. The bars show the cost of a million tokens read plus a million written.
GPT-4.1 nano costs 95% less for the same work.
The biggest differences
The tests each model wins by the widest margin, up to three each. Scores are out of 100.
Where o3 pulls ahead
- Reasons across sets of long documentsAA-LCR+54.4points ahead
- Keeps track of context across a multi-turn chatMulti-Challenge+45.4points ahead
- Short factual questions, answered correctlySimpleQA Verified+43.4points ahead
Where GPT-4.1 nano pulls ahead
- Avoids making up answers it doesn't knowAA-Omniscience · Non-hallucination+5.5points ahead
Every test, side by side
All 31 tests both models report. The winning score is in its model's colour; marks a score checked independently.
Reasoningo3
- GPQA Diamondo3 by 31.551.282.7+31.5
- Humanity's Last Examo3 by 16.33.820.1+16.3
- ARC-AGI-2o3 by 6.506.5+6.5
- CritPto3 by 1.101.1+1.1
Factso3
- SimpleQA Verifiedo3 by 43.4649.4+43.4
- AA-Omniscience · Accuracyo3 by 24.913.738.6+24.9
- AA-Omniscience · Non-hallucinationGPT-4.1 nano by 5.517.411.9+5.5
Images and chartso3
- CharXiv (RQ)o3 by 38.140.578.6+38.1
- MathVistao3 by 30.656.286.8+30.6
- MMMU-Proo3 by 3040.170.1+30
- MMMUo3 by 27.555.482.9+27.5
Following instructionso3
- Multi-Challengeo3 by 45.41560.4+45.4
- IFBencho3 by 39.43271.4+39.4
Other results14 tests, not counted
Tests outside the eight areas. They are not counted above: several are summary scores built from other tests, or the same test under another name.
- Aider-Polygloto3 by 71.59.881.3+71.5
- τ²-Bench Telecom (AA run)o3 by 63.417.380.7+63.4
- ARC-AGI-1o3 by 60.8060.8+60.8
- TAU-bench (retail)o3 by 51.322.673.9+51.3
- AA-Omniscienceo3 by 42.1-57.6-15.6+42.1
- TAU-bench (airline)o3 by 381452+38
- Artificial Analysis Coding Indexo3 by 27.311.138.4+27.3
- AIR-Bench 2024o3 by 2361.584.5+23
- AA Intelligenceo3 by 12.47.820.2+12.4
- HarmBencho3 by 11.686.898.4+11.6
- bbqo3 by 10.487.597.9+10.4
- anthropic_red_teamGPT-4.1 nano by 1.399.698.3+1.3
- XSTesto3 by 1.39697.3+1.3
- simple_safety_teststie9999tie
Questions people ask
Which is better, GPT-4.1 nano or o3?
o3 wins all seven areas where both have results: coding, agents, reasoning, facts, images and charts, long documents and following instructions. GPT-4.1 nano wins none, but costs 95% less.
Which is better for coding?
o3. It wins 2 of the 2 coding tests both models report; GPT-4.1 nano wins none.
Which is cheaper?
GPT-4.1 nano costs $0.10 per million input tokens and $0.40 per million output tokens; o3 costs $2.00 and $8.00. That makes GPT-4.1 nano about 95% cheaper for the same work.
How do you compare the two?
We use the 31 benchmark tests both models have published scores on. The verdict counts the 17 tests in the eight capability areas, and a gap under one point (ten on rating-style scales) counts as a tie. The other 14 are listed but not counted, because several are summary scores or repeat a test. Each score is the one shown on the model's own page.