GPT-4.1 vs GPT-5 Mini
Compare GPT-4.1 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 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 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 vs GPT-5 Mini: Overview
GPT-4.1, released by OpenAI in April 2025, is a multimodal large language model that advances the GPT-4 series with major improvements in coding, reasoning, and instruction following. It accepts both text and images, supports tool calling and structured outputs, and features an expanded context window of up to ~1 million tokens—enabling it to process very large documents, multi-file codebases, or long conversations in a single prompt. Its knowledge is current through June 2024.
The GPT-4.1 family includes standard, mini, and nano variants, offering trade-offs between performance, cost, and latency. While parameter counts remain undisclosed, the series improves efficiency and responsiveness compared to GPT-4, making it suitable for both enterprise-scale tasks and cost-sensitive applications. Common use cases include software development, technical research, knowledge management, multimodal analysis, and high-context enterprise assistants.
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 vs GPT-5 Mini Comparison Table
| Property | GPT-4.1 | 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 | $2.00 | $0.250 |
| Output $/1M | $8.00 | $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