| Signal | GPT-5 Nano | Delta | Grok 4.1 Fast |
|---|---|---|---|
Capabilities | 83 | -17 | |
Benchmarks | 48 | -27 | |
Pricing | 100 | +0 | |
Context window size | 89 | -11 | |
Recency | 83 | -17 | |
Output Capacity | 20 | -55 | |
| Overall Result | 1 wins | of 6 | 5 wins |
Score History
46
current score
Grok 4.1 Fast
right now
78
current score
OpenAI
xAI
GPT-5 Nano saves you $20.00/month
That's $240.00/year compared to Grok 4.1 Fast at your current usage level of 100K calls/month.
| Metric | GPT-5 Nano | Grok 4.1 Fast | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall Score | 46 | 78 | Grok 4.1 Fast |
| Rank | #176 | #52 | Grok 4.1 Fast |
| Quality Rank | #176 | #52 | Grok 4.1 Fast |
| Adoption Rank | #176 | #52 | Grok 4.1 Fast |
| Parameters | -- | -- | -- |
| Context Window | 400K | 2000K | Grok 4.1 Fast |
| Pricing | $0.05/$0.40/M | $0.20/$0.50/M | -- |
| Signal Scores | |||
| Capabilities | 83 | 100 | Grok 4.1 Fast |
| Benchmarks | 48 | 76 | Grok 4.1 Fast |
| Pricing | 100 | 100 | GPT-5 Nano |
| Context window size | 89 | 100 | Grok 4.1 Fast |
| Recency | 83 | 100 | Grok 4.1 Fast |
| Output Capacity | 20 | 75 | Grok 4.1 Fast |
Our score (0-100) is driven by benchmark performance (90%) from Arena Elo ratings, MMLU, GPQA, HumanEval, SWE-bench, and 15+ standardized evaluations. Capabilities and context window serve as tiebreakers (10%). Learn more about our methodology.
Scores 46/100 (rank #176), placing it in the top 40% of all 290 models tracked.
Scores 78/100 (rank #52), placing it in the top 82% of all 290 models tracked.
Grok 4.1 Fast has a 32-point advantage, which typically translates to noticeably stronger performance on complex reasoning, code generation, and multi-step tasks.
Grok 4.1 Fast offers 36% better value per quality point. At 1M tokens/day, you'd spend $6.75/month with GPT-5 Nano vs $10.50/month with Grok 4.1 Fast - a $3.75 monthly difference.
Both models have comparable response speeds. For most applications, the latency difference is negligible.
When latency matters most: Interactive chatbots, IDE code completion, real-time translation, and user-facing applications where response time directly impacts experience. For batch processing, background summarization, or offline analysis, latency is less critical.
Code generation & review
Based on overall model capabilities and architecture for coding tasks like generating functions, debugging, and refactoring
Customer support chatbot
Suitable for user-facing chat with competitive response times. GPT-5 Nano also offers lower per-token costs for high-volume support
Long document analysis
Larger context window (2000K tokens) can process longer documents, contracts, and research papers in a single pass
Batch data extraction
Lower output pricing ($0.40/M) reduces costs when processing thousands of records daily
Creative writing & content
Higher overall composite score (78/100) correlates with better nuance, coherence, and style in long-form content
Image understanding & OCR
Supports vision input - can analyze screenshots, diagrams, photos, and scanned documents directly
Grok 4.1 Fast clearly outperforms GPT-5 Nano with a significant 32-point lead. For most general use cases, Grok 4.1 Fast is the stronger choice. However, GPT-5 Nano may still excel in niche scenarios.
Best for Quality
GPT-5 Nano
Marginally better benchmark scores; both are excellent
Best for Cost
GPT-5 Nano
36% lower pricing; better value at scale
Best for Reliability
GPT-5 Nano
Higher uptime and faster response speeds
Best for Prototyping
GPT-5 Nano
Stronger community support and better developer experience
Best for Production
GPT-5 Nano
Wider enterprise adoption and proven at scale
by OpenAI
| Capability | GPT-5 Nano | Grok 4.1 Fast |
|---|---|---|
| Vision (Image Input) | ||
| Function Calling | ||
| Streaming | ||
| JSON Mode | ||
| Reasoning | ||
| Web Searchdiffers | ||
| Image Output |
OpenAI
xAI
GPT-5 Nano saves you $0.3900/month
That's 41% cheaper than Grok 4.1 Fast at 1,000 tokens/request and 100 requests/day.
Assumes 60% input / 40% output token ratio per request. Actual costs may vary based on your usage pattern.
| Parameter | GPT-5 Nano | Grok 4.1 Fast |
|---|---|---|
| Context Window | 400K | 2M |
| Max Output Tokens | -- | 30,000 |
| Open Source | No | No |
| Created | Aug 7, 2025 | Nov 19, 2025 |
Grok 4.1 Fast's #1 ranking in coding (vs #12) and 75/100 score represents top-tier performance that justifies the $0.20/M input and $0.50/M output pricing for production workloads. The real value proposition is the 2M token context window - 5x larger than GPT-5 Nano's 400K - which enables processing entire codebases without chunking, making it worth the premium for complex software engineering tasks.
For coding tasks, GPT-5 Nano's 4.3x larger output capacity (128K vs 30K tokens) is mostly theoretical since few coding completions exceed 10K tokens. However, at $0.40/M output tokens vs Grok's $0.50/M, GPT-5 Nano becomes compelling for full module generation or extensive code documentation tasks where you need 50K+ token outputs.
The 14-point score gap (75 vs 61) translates to measurable differences in complex reasoning tasks - Grok 4.1 Fast likely handles multi-file refactoring and architectural decisions with higher accuracy. However, GPT-5 Nano at 80% of the performance for 20-25% of the input cost still delivers professional-grade results for routine coding tasks like API implementations and test generation.
GPT-5 Nano would cost $1.20/day ($0.40 input + $0.80 output) versus Grok's $2.60/day ($1.60 input + $1.00 output), saving $511 annually. Unless you're hitting GPT-5 Nano's 400K context limit regularly or need top-1% accuracy for critical code generation, the 54% cost savings outweigh the 14-point performance gap for most startup use cases.
Despite matching on paper capabilities (vision, function calling, reasoning), Grok 4.1 Fast's 75/100 score suggests superior training data quality or model architecture from xAI. The 5x larger context window (2M vs 400K) indicates more recent architecture optimizations that likely contribute to its #1 ranking, while GPT-5 Nano appears to be OpenAI's efficiency play rather than their performance flagship.