GPT-4.1 Nano vs Grok 3 Mini

Summary of head-to-head results from our 12-test suite (scores are our 1–5 scale unless noted):

• Tool calling: Grok 3 Mini 5 vs GPT-4.1 Nano 4. Grok wins and is tied for 1st (rank 1 of 54, tied with 16) — better at function selection, argument accuracy, and sequencing in our tests.
• Long context: Grok 3 Mini 5 vs GPT-4.1 Nano 4. Grok is tied for 1st on long-context retrieval (rank 1 of 55, tied with 36); choose Grok for 30K+ token retrieval accuracy.
• Classification: Grok 3 Mini 4 vs GPT-4.1 Nano 3. Grok is tied for 1st in classification (rank 1 of 53, tied with 29); GPT-4.1 Nano ranks 31 of 53 — Grok is substantially better at routing and labeling tasks in our tests.
• Persona consistency: Grok 3 Mini 5 vs GPT-4.1 Nano 4. Grok ties for 1st (rank 1 of 53, tied with 36), showing stronger resistance to injection and tighter character maintenance in chat scenarios.
• Structured output (JSON/schema): GPT-4.1 Nano 5 vs Grok 3 Mini 4. GPT-4.1 Nano is tied for 1st (tied with 24 others out of 54) — it outperforms Grok when strict schema adherence and format compliance matter.
• Agentic planning: GPT-4.1 Nano 4 vs Grok 3 Mini 3. GPT-4.1 Nano ranks 16 of 54 (tied with 25) vs Grok rank 42 — Nano is stronger at goal decomposition and failure recovery in our tests.
• Strategic analysis and creative problem solving: Grok 3 Mini wins both (strategic analysis 3 vs 2; creative problem solving 3 vs 2). Ranks show Grok at mid-tier for these tasks while GPT-4.1 Nano is lower.
• Constrained rewriting, faithfulness, safety calibration, multilingual: ties. Both models scored 4 on constrained rewriting (rank 6 of 53 tied), 5 on faithfulness (tied for 1st across many models), 2 on safety calibration (rank 12 of 55 tied), and 4 on multilingual (both rank 36 of 55 tied).
• Additional math signals available only for GPT-4.1 Nano in our payload: MATH Level 5 = 70 (rank 11 of 14) and AIME 2025 = 28.9 (rank 20 of 23). These numbers show moderate performance on our high-difficulty math tests for GPT-4.1 Nano; Grok 3 Mini has no comparable math scores in the payload. Overall, Grok 3 Mini wins 6 tests, GPT-4.1 Nano wins 2, and 4 are ties (per our win/loss/tie summary). Use-case impact: pick Grok when you need tooling, long context, or classification; pick GPT-4.1 Nano when you need strict structured outputs or lower token costs.

Per-1k-token pricing from the payload: GPT-4.1 Nano input $0.10 + output $0.40 = $0.50 per 1k tokens; Grok 3 Mini input $0.30 + output $0.50 = $0.80 per 1k tokens. At 1M tokens/month (1,000 × 1k): GPT-4.1 Nano ≈ $500/month vs Grok 3 Mini ≈ $800/month. At 10M tokens: $5,000 vs $8,000. At 100M tokens: $50,000 vs $80,000. The 60% higher per-token bill for Grok 3 Mini (price ratio 0.8 in the payload) matters for high-volume apps (10M+ tokens/mo) and cost-sensitive startups; for low-volume prototypes the performance tradeoff may justify the higher spend for Grok's strengths.

Choose GPT-4.1 Nano if: you need the cheapest per-token option (total $0.50 per 1k tokens), strict JSON/schema compliance (structured output 5, tied for 1st), and better agentic planning (4 vs 3). This suits backend services that must enforce exact formats or teams optimizing for cost. Choose Grok 3 Mini if: your app relies on tool calling, long-context retrieval, classification, or persona consistency (Grok wins tool calling 5 vs 4, long context 5 vs 4, classification 4 vs 3, persona consistency 5 vs 4). This suits agentic workflows, function-calling bots, and chatbots that maintain a character or handle large contexts despite higher per-token cost.