Model comparison
GPT-4.1 nano vs Qwen3.5 Flash
Head-to-head evidence from 1 shared benchmark result across 1 category. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: GPT-4.1 nano #161 (Estimated); Qwen3.5 Flash #134 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. GPT-4.1 nano and Qwen3.5 Flash share 1 comparable benchmark result. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 20 results are unique to GPT-4.1 nano; 1 to Qwen3.5 Flash.
Updated July 23, 2026- Shared results
- 1
- GPT-4.1 nano only
- 20
- Qwen3.5 Flash only
- 1
- Comparable categories
- 1 / 8
Pick Qwen3.5 Flash if you want the stronger benchmark profile. GPT-4.1 nano only becomes the better choice if you would rather avoid the extra latency and token burn of a reasoning model.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 1 shared benchmark result across 1 evidence category; 1 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.
Why this result
Qwen3.5 Flash is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 47.65 to 42.06. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
Qwen3.5 Flash's sharpest advantage is in mathematics, where it averages 4.7 against 1. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3), 1.034% to 6.207%.
Qwen3.5 Flash 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.
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 nano | Δ | Qwen3.5 Flash |
|---|---|---|---|
| Math | GPT-4.1 nano1.0 | Margin→ 3.7 | Qwen3.5 Flash4.7 |
| Knowledge | GPT-4.1 nano50.3 | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.5 FlashNot measured |
| Inst. Following | GPT-4.1 nano83.2 | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.5 FlashNot measured |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)
MathA 1.034%B 6.207%Winner: Qwen3.5 FlashΔ 5.2FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3): GPT-4.1 nano scored 1.034%; Qwen3.5 Flash scored 6.207%. Qwen3.5 Flash wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | GPT-4.1 nano | Qwen3.5 Flash | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | GPT-4.1 nano$0.1 input / $0.4 output | Qwen3.5 Flash$0.1 input / $0.4 output | Listed prices are equal. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | GPT-4.1 nano181 tok/s | Qwen3.5 FlashNot available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | GPT-4.1 nano0.63 s | Qwen3.5 FlashNot available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | GPT-4.1 nano1M | Qwen3.5 Flash1M | Listed context windows are equal. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic4 benchmarks
Coding2 benchmarks
Reasoning2 benchmarks
Knowledge8 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GPT-4.1 nano | Qwen3.5 Flash | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMLUSource | 80.1% | — | Not comparable |
| GPQASource | 50.3% | — | 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 |
MathQwen3.5 Flash wins2 benchmarks
Multimodal2 benchmarks
Frequently Asked Questions (2)
Which is better, GPT-4.1 nano or Qwen3.5 Flash?
Qwen3.5 Flash is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 47.65 to 42.06. The biggest single separator in this matchup is FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3), where the scores are 1.034% and 6.207%.
Which is better for math, GPT-4.1 nano or Qwen3.5 Flash?
Qwen3.5 Flash has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 4.7 versus 1. 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.