GPT-4.1 Nano vs Grok 4

Summary of head-to-heads from our 12-test suite (scores are our 1–5 proxies unless noted): Wins for GPT-4.1 Nano (modelA) - structured output: 5 vs Grok 4’s 4 — Nano is tied for 1st on structured output ("tied for 1st with 24 other models out of 54 tested"), which means it’s top-tier for JSON/schema compliance and format adherence. - agentic planning: 4 vs 3 — Nano ranks 16 of 54, showing stronger goal decomposition and failure-recovery behavior in our tests. Wins for Grok 4 (modelB) - strategic analysis: 5 vs 2 — Grok 4 ties for 1st ("tied for 1st with 25 other models"), making it clearly preferable for nuanced tradeoff reasoning with numbers. - creative problem solving: 3 vs 2 — Grok 4 is a notch better at producing feasible, non-obvious ideas. - classification: 4 vs 3 — Grok 4 is tied for 1st in classification ("tied for 1st with 29 other models"), so it’s stronger for routing and labeling tasks. - long context: 5 vs 4 — Grok 4 ties for 1st in long context ("tied for 1st with 36 other models"), so it handles 30K+ retrieval tasks better. - persona consistency: 5 vs 4 — Grok 4 ties for 1st, meaning it better maintains role/character and resists injection. - multilingual: 5 vs 4 — Grok 4 ties for 1st on multilingual tests, so non-English outputs are stronger. Ties (both models) - constrained rewriting: 4 vs 4 — both rank 6 of 53, meaning both compress/rewrites are solid. - tool calling: 4 vs 4 — both rank 18 of 54 and perform similarly on function selection and argument accuracy. - faithfulness: 5 vs 5 — both tied for 1st with 32 others; both stick closely to source material. - safety calibration: 2 vs 2 — both rank 12 of 55; neither shows stronger safety calibration in our tests. External math benchmarks (Epoch AI): GPT-4.1 Nano scores 70% on MATH Level 5 and 28.9% on AIME 2025 (Epoch AI) — these are supplementary external datapoints for math performance. What this means in practice: pick Grok 4 if you need best-in-class strategic analysis, long-context retrieval, classification, multilingual or persona-driven chat. Pick GPT-4.1 Nano if top-tier structured output, stronger agentic planning, lower latency and dramatically lower cost are primary requirements.

Per the payload, GPT-4.1 Nano charges $0.10 per input mtok and $0.40 per output mtok; Grok 4 charges $3.00 per input mtok and $15.00 per output mtok. That makes Nano roughly 2.67% of Grok 4 on a per-mtok basis (priceRatio 0.0267). At realistic volumes assuming a 50/50 input:output split: - 1M tokens (500 mtok input + 500 mtok output): GPT-4.1 Nano = $250; Grok 4 = $9,000. - 10M tokens (5,000 mtok each): GPT-4.1 Nano = $2,500; Grok 4 = $90,000. - 100M tokens (50,000 mtok each): GPT-4.1 Nano = $25,000; Grok 4 = $900,000. If your workload is output-heavy, differences grow (e.g., 1M output tokens: Nano $400 vs Grok 4 $15,000). High-throughput products, startups, and any application billed per-token should care deeply about this gap; pockets where cost is negligible (small-scale prototypes, high-value analytic runs) can favor Grok 4’s capability wins.

Choose GPT-4.1 Nano if: - You need the cheapest, lowest-latency model for high-volume production (Nano: $0.10 input / $0.40 output per mtok). - Your workload demands strict JSON/schema compliance and reliable agentic planning (structured output 5, agentic planning 4). - You must scale to millions of tokens where cost dominates. Choose Grok 4 if: - You need superior strategic analysis, long-context retrieval (30K+ tokens), strong classification, multilingual output or persona consistency (Grok 4 wins 6 of 12 benchmarks). - You run fewer, high-value runs where capability justifies higher spend (Grok 4: $3 input / $15 output per mtok). - You prioritize nuanced tradeoff reasoning or complex routing over per-token cost.