Model comparison
GPT-4.1 mini vs GPT-5.6 Sol
Head-to-head evidence from 18 shared benchmark results across 7 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: GPT-4.1 mini #152 (Estimated); GPT-5.6 Sol #3 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. GPT-4.1 mini and GPT-5.6 Sol share 18 comparable benchmark results. 3 of 8 categories are comparable. 4 results are unique to GPT-4.1 mini; 28 to GPT-5.6 Sol.
Updated July 23, 2026- Shared results
- 18
- GPT-4.1 mini only
- 4
- GPT-5.6 Sol only
- 28
- Comparable categories
- 3 / 8
Pick GPT-5.6 Sol if you want the stronger benchmark profile. GPT-4.1 mini only becomes the better choice if you want the cheaper token bill or you would rather avoid the extra latency and token burn of a reasoning model.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 18 shared benchmark results across 7 evidence categories; 3 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.
Why this result
GPT-5.6 Sol is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 81.96 to 44.19. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
GPT-5.6 Sol's sharpest advantage is in mathematics, where it averages 87.5 against 4.5. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3), 4.483% to 89.000%.
GPT-5.6 Sol is also the more expensive model on tokens at $5.00 input / $30.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.40 input / $1.60 output per 1M tokens for GPT-4.1 mini. That is roughly 18.8x on output cost alone. GPT-5.6 Sol is the reasoning model in the pair, while GPT-4.1 mini 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.
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 | GPT-4.1 mini | Δ | GPT-5.6 Sol |
|---|---|---|---|
| Math | GPT-4.1 mini4.5 | Margin→ 83.0 | GPT-5.6 Sol87.5 |
| Coding | GPT-4.1 mini23.6 | Margin→ 41.0 | GPT-5.6 Sol64.6 |
| Knowledge | GPT-4.1 mini64.2 | Margin→ 30.4 | GPT-5.6 Sol94.6 |
| Agentic | GPT-4.1 miniNot measured | MarginNo overlap | GPT-5.6 Sol92.0 |
| Multimodal | GPT-4.1 miniNot measured | MarginNo overlap | GPT-5.6 Sol83.0 |
| Inst. Following | GPT-4.1 mini88.5 | MarginNo overlap | GPT-5.6 SolNot measured |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)
MathA 4.483%B 89.000%Winner: GPT-5.6 SolΔ 84.5FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3): GPT-4.1 mini scored 4.483%; GPT-5.6 Sol scored 89.000%. GPT-5.6 Sol wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
GPQA
KnowledgeA 64.2%B 94.6%Winner: GPT-5.6 SolΔ 30.4GPQA: GPT-4.1 mini scored 64.2%; GPT-5.6 Sol scored 94.6%. GPT-5.6 Sol wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | GPT-4.1 mini | GPT-5.6 Sol | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | GPT-4.1 mini$0.4 input / $1.6 output | GPT-5.6 Sol$5 input / $30 output | GPT-4.1 mini has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | GPT-4.1 mini80 tok/s | GPT-5.6 SolNot available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | GPT-4.1 mini0.76 s | GPT-5.6 SolNot available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | GPT-4.1 mini1M | GPT-5.6 Sol1M | Listed context windows are equal. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic17 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GPT-4.1 mini | GPT-5.6 Sol | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Agentic IndexSource | 1.7% | 54.0% | GPT-5.6 Sol leads |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | 52.9% | 85.1% | GPT-5.6 Sol leads |
| GDPval-AASource | 0.1% | 61.8% | GPT-5.6 Sol leads |
| GDPval-AASource | 503 | 1736 | GPT-5.6 Sol leads |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | — | 91.9% | Not comparable |
| BrowseCompSource | — | 92.2% | Not comparable |
| OSWorld 2.0Source | — | 62.6% | Not comparable |
| CyberGymSource | — | 84.5% | Not comparable |
| ExploitGymSource | — | 33.7% | Not comparable |
| ToolathlonSource | — | 58% | Not comparable |
| AA BriefcaseSource | — | 1501 | Not comparable |
| AA ITBenchSource | — | 56.2% | Not comparable |
| AA Tau3 BankingSource | — | 33.0% | Not comparable |
| AA AutomationBenchSource | — | 51.2% | Not comparable |
| AA Harvey LABSource | — | 87.2% | Not comparable |
| terminalBenchHardSource | — | 65.9% | Not comparable |
| aaTerminalBench21Source | — | 88% | Not comparable |
CodingGPT-5.6 Sol wins9 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GPT-4.1 mini | GPT-5.6 Sol | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench VerifiedSource | 23.6% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Coding IndexSource | 20.2% | 77.4% | GPT-5.6 Sol leads |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 40.4% | 56.1% | GPT-5.6 Sol leads |
| SWE-bench ProSource | — | 64.6% | Not comparable |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | — | 91.9% | Not comparable |
| deepSweSource | — | 72.7% | Not comparable |
| FrontierCode 1.1 ExtendedSource | — | 60.6% | Not comparable |
| cursorBench32Source | — | 67.2% | Not comparable |
| VulcanBench v3Source | — | 87.0% | Not comparable |
Reasoning4 benchmarks
KnowledgeGPT-5.6 Sol wins11 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GPT-4.1 mini | GPT-5.6 Sol | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMLUSource | 87.5% | — | Not comparable |
| GPQASource | 64.2% | 94.6% | GPT-5.6 Sol leads |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 14.8% | 58.9% | GPT-5.6 Sol leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 66.4% | 94.1% | GPT-5.6 Sol leads |
| AA-HLESource | 4.6% | 47.2% | GPT-5.6 Sol leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | -50.1% | 21.7% | GPT-5.6 Sol leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 17.5% | 58.5% | GPT-5.6 Sol leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 82.0% | 88.8% | GPT-4.1 mini leads |
| GPQA-DSource | — | 94.6% | Not comparable |
| HealthBench ProfessionalSource | — | 60.5% | Not comparable |
| HealthBench HardSource | — | 33.1% | Not comparable |
MathGPT-5.6 Sol wins3 benchmarks
Multimodal4 benchmarks
Frequently Asked Questions (4)
Which is better, GPT-4.1 mini or GPT-5.6 Sol?
GPT-5.6 Sol is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 81.96 to 44.19. The biggest single separator in this matchup is FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3), where the scores are 4.483% and 89.000%.
Which is better for knowledge tasks, GPT-4.1 mini or GPT-5.6 Sol?
GPT-5.6 Sol has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 94.6 versus 64.2. Inside this category, AA-Omniscience Index is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for coding, GPT-4.1 mini or GPT-5.6 Sol?
GPT-5.6 Sol has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 64.6 versus 23.6. Inside this category, AA Coding Index is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for math, GPT-4.1 mini or GPT-5.6 Sol?
GPT-5.6 Sol has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 87.5 versus 4.5. Inside this category, FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3) 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.