Model Comparison
GPT-4.1 nano
vs. Gemini 3.7 Flash (high)
Comparing 2 AI models · 12 benchmarks · OpenAI, Google
Recommended Pick
GoGemini 3.7 Flash (high)8 metric winsStrongest on: Throughput, Reasoning, Intelligence
Best Value
GPT-4.1 nano
100.0 value score
31.6 reasoning / $0.18/1M
Lowest Price
GPT-4.1 nano
$0.10/1M input price
Best Reasoning
Gemini 3.7 Flash (high)
66.1 reasoning score
Blends available reasoning benchmarks
Best for Coding
Gemini 3.7 Flash (high)
76.1 coding index
Composite Indices
Higher is better; speed and price are normalized
Standard Benchmarks
Only benchmarks with data are shown
Differences That Matter
Best value
GPT-4.1 nano has the strongest quality-to-price mix at 100.0 out of 100 value points.
Price gap
GPT-4.1 nano is 7.5x cheaper on input tokens than Gemini 3.7 Flash (high).
Reasoning gap
Gemini 3.7 Flash (high) leads GPT-4.1 nano by 34.6 points on reasoning.
Coding gap
Gemini 3.7 Flash (high) leads GPT-4.1 nano by 65.0 points on coding.
Top-pick rationale
Gemini 3.7 Flash (high) wins 8 measurable categories, including Throughput, Reasoning, Intelligence, Coding.
Response Face-Off
Run one prompt through the selected models and compare response quality with live speed and cost context.
GPT-4.1 nano
OpenAI
TTFT
—
Time
—
tok/s
—
Tokens
—
Cost
—
Gemini 3.7 Flash (high)
TTFT
—
Time
—
tok/s
—
Tokens
—
Cost
—
Which answer was more useful?
Chat with leading AI models
Use Claude, ChatGPT, Gemini alongside with EU-Hosted Models like Deepseek, Qwen & Kimi.
EU-hosted inference
Servers in Germany & Finland. Designed to meet strict GDPR and ISO 27001 compliance requirements.
Full Comparison
| Metric | Op GPT-4.1 nano | Top Pick Go Gemini 3.7 Flash (high) |
|---|---|---|
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input Cost | $0.10/1M | $0.75/1M |
| Output Cost | $0.40/1M | $3.75/1M |
| Blended (3:1) | $0.18/1M | $1.50/1M |
| Specifications | ||
| Organization | OpenAI | |
| Release Date | Apr 14, 2025 | Aug 13, 2026 |
| Performance & Speed | ||
| Throughput | — | 515.0 tok/s |
| TTFT | — | 6354ms |
| Latency | — | 6354ms |
| Composite Indices | ||
| Value Score | 100.0 | 24.4 |
| Reasoning Score | 31.6 | 66.1 |
| Intelligence | 9.6 | 56.0 |
| Coding | 11.1 | 76.1 |
| Math | 24.0 | — |
| Standard Benchmarks | ||
| GPQA | 51.2% | 94.5% |
| MMLU Pro | 65.7% | — |
| HLE | 3.8% | 47.9% |
| LiveCodeBench | 32.6% | — |
| MATH 500 | 84.8% | — |
| AIME 2025 | 24.0% | — |
| AIME (Original) | 23.7% | — |
| SciCode | 25.9% | 56.8% |
| LCR | 19.3% | 80.0% |
| IFBench | 32.0% | — |
| TAU-bench v2 | 17.3% | — |
| TerminalBench Hard | 3.8% | — |
Key Takeaways
GPT-4.1 nano offers the best value at $0.10/1M,making it ideal for high-volume applications and cost-conscious projects.
Gemini 3.7 Flash (high) has the strongest reasoning profile with a 66.1 reasoning score,combining the available reasoning-heavy benchmarks.
Gemini 3.7 Flash (high) reaches a 76.1 coding index,making it the top choice for software development and code generation tasks.
All models support context windows of ∞+ tokens,suitable for processing lengthy documents and maintaining extended conversations.
When to Choose Each Model
GPT-4.1 nano
- Cost-sensitive applications
- High-volume processing
Gemini 3.7 Flash (high)
- Complex reasoning tasks
- Research & analysis
- Code generation
- Software development
