GPT-4.1 mini vs GPT-5 Mini
Compare GPT-4.1 mini and GPT-5 Mini side-by-side. See how these vision models stack up in Open Prompt, Image Captioning, OCR, Object Detection, and Classification.
Compare GPT-4.1 mini vs GPT-5 Mini live
Run the same image across every model that supports a task and compare their outputs side-by-side.
Detect and compare bounding boxes across models on the same image.
Upload an image
Drag and drop an image here, or click to browse
GPT-4.1 mini is deprecated and can no longer be run. Details and evals are still available on its model page.
Models in this comparison
GPT-4.1 mini vs GPT-5 Mini: Overview
GPT-4.1 mini, released by OpenAI in April 2025, is a smaller, faster, and cheaper variant of GPT-4.1 designed for high-throughput and cost-sensitive applications. It is multimodal, handling both text and images, and inherits the full model’s strengths in coding, structured outputs, and long-context reasoning. With support for up to 1 million tokens, it enables reliable processing of extended documents, multi-file codebases, and lengthy conversations while keeping latency low.
GPT-4.1 mini offers an efficient alternative to GPT-4.1 and replaced GPT-4o mini as the default ChatGPT model in May 2025. Despite being smaller, it matches or outperforms GPT-4o on several benchmarks, particularly for instruction following and real-world coding tasks. Ideal use cases include large-scale conversational systems, affordable developer tools, document analysis, and interactive assistants where speed and cost are critical.
GPT-5 Mini, released by OpenAI on August 7, 2025, is a mid-tier variant of the GPT-5 family that balances cost, speed, and capability. It is multimodal, supporting both text and image inputs, and offers a substantial input context window of ~400,000 tokens with output lengths up to ~128,000 tokens. While less powerful than the full GPT-5, it inherits its safety tuning, instruction-following improvements, and multimodal reasoning, making it a practical choice for developers who need large context handling without the expense of premium models.
GPT-5 Mini is optimized for affordability while retaining strong reasoning performance. Benchmarks show it outperforming earlier models such as GPT-4o on many multimodal and medical VQA tasks, though it lags behind GPT-5 on the most complex problems. Ideal use cases include prototyping, scalable content generation, document analysis, and mid-range reasoning tasks where efficiency and context capacity matter more than top-tier accuracy.
GPT-4.1 mini vs GPT-5 Mini Comparison Table
| Property | GPT-4.1 mini | GPT-5 Mini |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | OpenAI | OpenAI |
| Category | closed | closed |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Apr 2025 | Aug 2025 |
| Context Window | 1.0M | 400K |
| Parameters | ||
| License | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $0.400 | $0.250 |
| Output $/1M | $1.60 | $2.00 |
| Vision Tasks | ||
| Captioning | Demo | |
| Classification | Demo | |
| Object Detection | Demo | |
| OCR | Demo | |
| Vision Language | ||
| Visual Question Answering | Demo | |
| Model Features | ||
| Foundation Vision | ||
| LLMs with Vision Capabilities | ||
| Multimodal Vision | ||
Vision Evalspass/fail results · 67 prompts Score key:≥75%40–74%<40% | ||
| Visual Understanding | ||
| Overall Score | 73.13% | |
| Avg Response Time | 11.72s | |
| Median input tokensincl. image tokens | 1.4K | |
| Median output tokens | 143 | |
| Est. cost / taskon this benchmark | $0.0006 | |
| Defect Detection | 80%(12/15) | |
| Document Understanding | 77.8%(7/9) | |
| Object Counting | 10%(1/10) | |
| Object Understanding | 85.7%(12/14) | |
| Spatial Understanding | 89.5%(17/19) | |
| OCR | ||
| Overall Score | 76.86% | |
| Avg Response Time | 4.63s | |
| Median input tokensincl. image tokens | 105 | |
| Median output tokens | 209 | |
| Est. cost / taskon this benchmark | $0.0004 | |
| Focused Scene OCR | 72.7%(72/99) | |
| Handwritten Math | 50%(5/10) | |
| License Plate Recognition | 93.3%(28/30) | |
| Text Recognition | 80%(24/30) | |
| VQA & Extraction | 78.3%(47/60) | |
Output tokens (incl. reasoning) and est. cost / task are measured on this benchmark from a single low-temperature run, and shown only for models whose run covered at least 90% of prompts. Methodology