Model comparison
Gemma 4 E2B vs GPT-4.1 nano
Head-to-head evidence from 13 shared benchmark results across 6 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: Gemma 4 E2B #162 (Estimated); GPT-4.1 nano #161 (Estimated). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Gemma 4 E2B and GPT-4.1 nano share 13 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 1 result is unique to Gemma 4 E2B; 8 to GPT-4.1 nano.
Updated July 23, 2026- Shared results
- 13
- Gemma 4 E2B only
- 1
- GPT-4.1 nano only
- 8
- Comparable categories
- 1 / 8
Pick GPT-4.1 nano if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Gemma 4 E2B only becomes the better choice if knowledge is the priority or you want the cheaper token bill.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 13 shared benchmark results across 6 evidence categories; 1 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.
Why this result
GPT-4.1 nano has the cleaner BenchAlign overall profile here, landing at 42.06 versus 41.82. It is a real lead, but still close enough that category-level strengths matter more than the headline number.
GPT-4.1 nano is also the more expensive model on tokens at $0.10 input / $0.40 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.00 input / $0.00 output per 1M tokens for Gemma 4 E2B. That is roughly Infinityx on output cost alone. Gemma 4 E2B is the reasoning model in the pair, while GPT-4.1 nano is not. That usually helps on harder chain-of-thought-heavy tests, but it can also mean more latency and more token spend in real use. GPT-4.1 nano gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 128K for Gemma 4 E2B.
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 | Gemma 4 E2B | Δ | GPT-4.1 nano |
|---|---|---|---|
| Knowledge | Gemma 4 E2B56.9 | Margin← 6.6 | GPT-4.1 nano50.3 |
| Math | Gemma 4 E2BNot measured | MarginNo overlap | GPT-4.1 nano1.0 |
| Inst. Following | Gemma 4 E2BNot 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 43.4%B 50.3%Winner: GPT-4.1 nanoΔ 6.9GPQA: Gemma 4 E2B scored 43.4%; GPT-4.1 nano scored 50.3%. GPT-4.1 nano wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Gemma 4 E2B | GPT-4.1 nano | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Gemma 4 E2B$0 input / $0 output | GPT-4.1 nano$0.1 input / $0.4 output | Gemma 4 E2B has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Gemma 4 E2BNot available | GPT-4.1 nano181 tok/s | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Gemma 4 E2BNot available | GPT-4.1 nano0.63 s | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Gemma 4 E2B128K | GPT-4.1 nano1M | GPT-4.1 nano lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic4 benchmarks
Coding2 benchmarks
Reasoning2 benchmarks
KnowledgeGemma 4 E2B wins9 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemma 4 E2B | GPT-4.1 nano | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQASource | 43.4% | 50.3% | GPT-4.1 nano leads |
| MMLU-ProSource | 60% | — | Not comparable |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 9.3% | 9.6% | GPT-4.1 nano leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 37.5% | 51.2% | GPT-4.1 nano leads |
| AA-HLESource | 4.8% | 3.9% | Gemma 4 E2B leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | -24.0% | -56.4% | Gemma 4 E2B leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 6.7% | 13.3% | GPT-4.1 nano leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 32.9% | 80.4% | Gemma 4 E2B leads |
| MMLUSource | — | 80.1% | Not comparable |
Math1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemma 4 E2B | GPT-4.1 nano | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source | — | 1.034% | Not comparable |
Multimodal2 benchmarks
Frequently Asked Questions (2)
Which is better, Gemma 4 E2B or GPT-4.1 nano?
GPT-4.1 nano is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 42.06 to 41.82. The biggest single separator in this matchup is GPQA, where the scores are 43.4% and 50.3%.
Which is better for knowledge tasks, Gemma 4 E2B or GPT-4.1 nano?
Gemma 4 E2B has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 56.9 versus 50.3. Inside this category, AA-Omniscience Hallucination Rate is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
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.