Model comparison
DeepSeek V4 Flash vs GPT-4.1 nano
Head-to-head evidence from 2 shared benchmark results across 2 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: DeepSeek V4 Flash #61 (Estimated); GPT-4.1 nano #161 (Estimated). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. DeepSeek V4 Flash and GPT-4.1 nano share 2 comparable benchmark results. 2 of 8 categories are comparable. 20 results are unique to DeepSeek V4 Flash; 19 to GPT-4.1 nano.
Updated July 23, 2026- Shared results
- 2
- DeepSeek V4 Flash only
- 20
- GPT-4.1 nano only
- 19
- Comparable categories
- 2 / 8
Pick DeepSeek V4 Flash if you want the stronger benchmark profile. GPT-4.1 nano only becomes the better choice if knowledge is the priority.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 2 shared benchmark results across 2 evidence categories; 2 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.
Why this result
DeepSeek V4 Flash is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 58.88 to 42.06. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
DeepSeek V4 Flash's sharpest advantage is in mathematics, where it averages 40.8 against 1. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is GPQA, 71.2% to 50.3%. GPT-4.1 nano does hit back in knowledge, so the answer changes if that is the part of the workload you care about most.
GPT-4.1 nano is also the more expensive model on tokens at $0.10 input / $0.40 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.14 input / $0.28 output per 1M tokens for DeepSeek V4 Flash.
Category breakdown
Exact category averages are shown below. Not measured means BenchLM does not have enough sourced public coverage for that model and category.
| Category | DeepSeek V4 Flash | Δ | GPT-4.1 nano |
|---|---|---|---|
| Math | DeepSeek V4 Flash40.8 | Margin← 39.8 | GPT-4.1 nano1.0 |
| Knowledge | DeepSeek V4 Flash38.8 | Margin→ 11.5 | GPT-4.1 nano50.3 |
| Agentic | DeepSeek V4 Flash49.1 | MarginNo overlap | GPT-4.1 nanoNot measured |
| Coding | DeepSeek V4 Flash64.2 | MarginNo overlap | GPT-4.1 nanoNot measured |
| Inst. Following | DeepSeek V4 FlashNot measured | MarginNo overlap | GPT-4.1 nano83.2 |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
GPQA
KnowledgeA 71.2%B 50.3%Winner: DeepSeek V4 FlashΔ 20.9GPQA: DeepSeek V4 Flash scored 71.2%; GPT-4.1 nano scored 50.3%. DeepSeek V4 Flash wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | DeepSeek V4 Flash | GPT-4.1 nano | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | DeepSeek V4 Flash$0.14 input / $0.28 output | GPT-4.1 nano$0.1 input / $0.4 output | DeepSeek V4 Flash has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | DeepSeek V4 FlashNot available | GPT-4.1 nano181 tok/s | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | DeepSeek V4 FlashNot available | GPT-4.1 nano0.63 s | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | DeepSeek V4 Flash1M | GPT-4.1 nano1M | Listed context windows are equal. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic9 benchmarks
| Benchmark | DeepSeek V4 Flash | GPT-4.1 nano | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 49.1% | — | Not comparable |
| MCP AtlasSource | 64% | — | Not comparable |
| ToolathlonSource | 40.7% | — | Not comparable |
| Claw-EvalSource | 57.8% | — | Not comparable |
| Gert LabsSource | 54.35% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | — | 1.2% | Not comparable |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | — | 17.3% | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | — | 0.0% | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | — | 41 | Not comparable |
Coding6 benchmarks
Reasoning4 benchmarks
KnowledgeGPT-4.1 nano wins13 benchmarks
| Benchmark | DeepSeek V4 Flash | GPT-4.1 nano | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMLU-ProSource | 83% | — | Not comparable |
| SimpleQASource | 23.1% | — | Not comparable |
| Chinese-SimpleQASource | 71.5% | — | Not comparable |
| GPQASource | 71.2% | 50.3% | DeepSeek V4 Flash leads |
| GPQA-DSource | 71.2% | — | Not comparable |
| HLESource | 8.1% | — | Not comparable |
| MMLUSource | — | 80.1% | Not comparable |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | — | 9.6% | Not comparable |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | — | 51.2% | Not comparable |
| AA-HLESource | — | 3.9% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | — | -56.4% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | — | 13.3% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | — | 80.4% | Not comparable |
MathDeepSeek V4 Flash wins5 benchmarks
Multimodal2 benchmarks
Frequently Asked Questions (3)
Which is better, DeepSeek V4 Flash or GPT-4.1 nano?
DeepSeek V4 Flash is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 58.88 to 42.06. The biggest single separator in this matchup is GPQA, where the scores are 71.2% and 50.3%.
Which is better for knowledge tasks, DeepSeek V4 Flash or GPT-4.1 nano?
GPT-4.1 nano has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 50.3 versus 38.8. Inside this category, GPQA is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for math, DeepSeek V4 Flash or GPT-4.1 nano?
DeepSeek V4 Flash has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 40.8 versus 1. GPT-4.1 nano stays close enough that the answer can still flip depending on your workload.
Related Comparisons
Explore More
Choose a model with this week’s evidence
Join 2,000+ readers for ranking moves, pricing changes, and the claims that still need proof.
One email each week. Unsubscribe anytime.