Gemini 3.7 Flash vs GPT-4.1 Nano
At a Glance
| Compare |  Gemini 3.7 FlashGoogle DeepMind |  GPT-4.1 NanoOpenAI |
|---|---|---|
| Intelligence, Cost, and Efficiency | ||
| IntelligenceHigher is better · MM Intelligence v2.5 | #4 of 4687.7 score · 3/3 sources · complete | UnrankedNot in the 46-model eligible cohort |
| CostLower is better · Published-token output estimate | #17 of 44$0.085 per LiveBench case | UnrankedNot in the 44-model eligible cohort |
| EfficiencyHigher is better · MM Efficiency v1.5 | #2 of 3869.9 score · 3/3 sources · complete | UnrankedNot in the 38-model eligible cohort |
| Pricing and Limits | ||
| Input priceFrom · USD / 1M tokens | $0.75Google AI ↗ · Aug 29, 2026 | $0.050Openrouter ↗ · Sep 3, 2026 |
| Output priceFrom · USD / 1M tokens | $3.75Google AI ↗ · Aug 29, 2026 | $0.20Openrouter ↗ · Sep 3, 2026 |
| Context windowMaximum documented tokens | 1,049K | 1,048K |
| Model facts checked | Aug 29, 2026View model evidence → | Aug 29, 2026View model evidence → |
Token prices are the lowest available sourced USD rates; input and output may use different providers. Cost ranking estimates output spend on LiveBench, not a full request bill. Ranking methodology →
Available Benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.7 Flash | GPT-4.1 Nano |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text Arenatext-2026-09-13-d25aabda0010 · arena_rating · leader | 1,490.49100% of row best · rating · gemini-3.7-flash-high; 95% CI [1482.31296820, 1498.67106273]; votes 5640; rank 8 | 1,284.7286% of row best · rating · gpt-4.1-nano-2025-04-14; 95% CI [1277.08013307, 1292.36659971]; votes 6103; rank 250 |
| Overall ResultCounted from the protocol-matched rows above | 1 benchmark winNo overall winner | 0 benchmark winsNo overall winner |
Third-party benchmark Only like-for-like primary-publisher results are shown; raw scores, relative scores, configuration, and token spend remain visible.
Side-by-Side Facts
| Field | Gemini 3.7 Flash | GPT-4.1 Nano |
|---|---|---|
| Developer | Google DeepMind | OpenAI |
| Family | Gemini 3 | Gpt 4 1 |
| Model | Gemini 3.7 Flash | GPT-4.1 Nano |
| Version | Gemini 3.7 Flash | GPT-4.1 Nano |
| Lifecycle | active | active |
| Released | Unknown | Unknown |
| Knowledge cutoff | Unknown | 2024-06-01 |
| Input modalities | Text, Image, Video, Audio, Document | Text, Image |
| Output modalities | Text | Text |
| Context window | 1,049K | 1,048K |
| Total parameters | Unknown | Unknown |
| Active parameters | Unknown | Unknown |
| License | Unknown | Unknown |
| Open weights | No | No |
| API available | Yes | Yes |
| Self-hostable | No | No |
| Provider access | Google AI (Standard), Google Gemini (Standard) | Openai (Standard), Openrouter (Standard) |
| Capabilities | chat, generation, reasoning, tools | chat, generation, tools |
Gemini 3.7 Flash Capabilities
GPT-4.1 Nano Capabilities
Related Comparisons
All text comparisons →| A | Pair | B | Context |
|---|---|---|---|
Gemini 3.7 FlashGoogle DeepMind | vs | GPT-6 AstraOpenAI | cross-developer peerstext |
Claude Fable 5.1Anthropic | vs | Gemini 3.7 FlashGoogle DeepMind | cross-developer peerstext |
Gemini 3.1 ProGoogle DeepMind | vs | Gemini 3.7 FlashGoogle DeepMind | family variantstext |
 DeepSeek-V4.1-FlashDeepSeek | vs | Gemini 3.7 FlashGoogle DeepMind | cross-developer peerstext |
Gemini 3.7 FlashGoogle DeepMind | vs | Grok 4.6xAI | cross-developer peerstext |
Gemini 3.7 FlashGoogle DeepMind | vs |  Qwen3.8-MaxQwen | cross-developer peerstext |
Gemini 3.7 FlashGoogle DeepMind | vs |  Kimi-K3Moonshot AI | cross-developer peerstext |
 MiniMax-M3MiniMax | vs | Gemini 3.7 FlashGoogle DeepMind | cross-developer peerstext |
Gemini 3.7 FlashGoogle DeepMind | vs |  GLM-5.3Z.ai | cross-developer peerstext |
Gemini 3.7 FlashGoogle DeepMind | vs |  Hy4 previewTencent | cross-developer peerstext |
Seed 2.1 ProByteDance Seed | vs | Gemini 3.7 FlashGoogle DeepMind | cross-developer peerstext |
Gemini 3.7 FlashGoogle DeepMind | vs |  Mistral Large 3Mistral AI | cross-developer peerstext |
Primary Evidence
Sources and Freshness
Questions
Gemini 3.7 Flash vs GPT-4.1 Nano FAQs
Is Gemini 3.7 Flash or GPT-4.1 Nano better for coding?+
This comparison does not currently contain a protocol-matched coding benchmark for both Gemini 3.7 Flash and GPT-4.1 Nano, so Model Markets cannot name a coding leader from pricing, context size, or capability labels alone.
Which is cheaper, Gemini 3.7 Flash or GPT-4.1 Nano?+
Gemini 3.7 Flash is $0.75 and GPT-4.1 Nano is $0.050 per million tokens, so GPT-4.1 Nano is cheaper on this metric. Gemini 3.7 Flash is $3.75 and GPT-4.1 Nano is $0.20 per million tokens, so GPT-4.1 Nano is cheaper on this metric.
Which has a larger context window, Gemini 3.7 Flash or GPT-4.1 Nano?+
Gemini 3.7 Flash has the larger sourced context window. Gemini 3.7 Flash supports 1,049K and GPT-4.1 Nano supports 1,048K.
Which performs better in benchmarks, Gemini 3.7 Flash or GPT-4.1 Nano?+
There is no overall benchmark winner: At least two independently verified, protocol-matched benchmarks are required for an overall winner.
Can Gemini 3.7 Flash or GPT-4.1 Nano be self-hosted?+
Both models have the same recorded self-hosting status: unsupported. Gemini 3.7 Flash is not marked open weight; GPT-4.1 Nano is not marked open weight.
Can Gemini 3.7 Flash and GPT-4.1 Nano understand images?+
Gemini 3.7 Flash is documented with image input; GPT-4.1 Nano is documented with image input. This reflects supported input modalities, not vision quality.
Which can generate longer answers, Gemini 3.7 Flash or GPT-4.1 Nano?+
Gemini 3.7 Flash has the larger sourced maximum output: Gemini 3.7 Flash supports 66K and GPT-4.1 Nano supports 33K output tokens.
Do Gemini 3.7 Flash and GPT-4.1 Nano support reasoning and tool use?+
Gemini 3.7 Flash: reasoning, tool calling, and image input. GPT-4.1 Nano: tool calling and image input. Feature support does not establish relative quality.
Which is available from more inference providers, Gemini 3.7 Flash or GPT-4.1 Nano?+
Gemini 3.7 Flash has 2 sourced provider routes; GPT-4.1 Nano has 2, a tie.
Which offers better value, Gemini 3.7 Flash or GPT-4.1 Nano?+
There is no universal value winner. Compare the input and output prices above with the matched benchmark result for your workload: cheaper tokens can be offset by different quality, token usage, latency, or provider availability.