Skip to content
Rival
How it worksPrivacyTerms
Explore all of Rival

Explore

  • Compare models
  • All models
  • Image comparison
  • Audio comparison
  • Image generation
  • Best AI for...
  • Arena
  • API pricing
  • Challenges

Discover

  • SubjectiveBench
  • Default Index
  • Research
  • Research downloads
  • Rival Kits
  • Find your AI taste
  • UI Glow-Up
  • VoiceLock
  • Cost Cutter
  • Agent skills
  • Benchmarks vs Vibes
  • Brief
  • Jailbreak
  • Model updates
  • Provider status
  • AI creators

Connect

  • Methodology
  • Advertise
  • Partnerships
  • Privacy policy
  • Terms
  • RSS feed
  1. Home/
  2. Compare/
  3. Claude Sonnet 5.5 vs GPT-4.1 Nano
Updated Sep 2026

Claude Sonnet 5.5 vs GPT-4.1 Nano

GPT-4.1 Nano is cheaper than Claude Sonnet 5.5 at $0.1/M vs $2/M input tokens.

Minimalist Landing Page

Whole landing page for a startup that reads your face. It renders or it doesn't.

Loading the build
Claude Sonnet 5.5
Loading the build
GPT-4.1 Nano

Which answer wins?

Written rounds

23 prompts
  • Three minutes of stand-up. Puns are banned.

    Claude Sonnet 5.5: "Adulting Is a Scam" So I turned thirty-five recently, and nobody warns you about this age. Nobody says, "Hey, one day you'll get excited about a sponge." I was in the store, and I saw a sponge that promised it wouldn't smell. And I thought, "Finally. Someone who understands me." I bought the good sponge.

    GPT-4.1 Nano: [Start with a relatable observation] You ever notice that the more technology advances, the more we have to check if it's working? I mean, I bought a smart coffee maker. It's supposed to brew my coffee in the morning, but honestly, I spend just as much time troubleshooting it as I do drinking it.

    Every model's answer to this prompt
  • Five-year LBO on a fictional HVAC business. Returns first, then the sensitivities.

    Claude Sonnet 5.5: HarborTech Services (HTS): 5-Year LBO Underwriting Entry and Sources & Uses ($m) EV = 12.0x × 120 = 1,440.0; fees = 2% × 1,440 = 28.8; total uses = 1,468.8 Term Loan (TL) = 4.0x → 480.0; Mezz = 1.5x → 180.0; total debt = 660.0 (5.5x) Sponsor equity = 1,468.8 − 660.0 = 808.8 (55% of the capital structure) Modeling…

    GPT-4.1 Nano: Let's proceed step-by-step. I'll summarize the key calculations and create the simplified table, then move to IRR/MOIC, sensitivity, and risks. Initial Deal Assumptions Recap Entry EBITDA FY2025: $120m Entry EV: 12.0x EBITDA = 12.0 * 120 = $1,440m Transaction fees: 2.0% * $1,440m = $28.8m (paid from equity) Leverage at…

    Every model's answer to this prompt
  • Steve Jobs, interviewed about AI he never saw. Voice first, prediction second.

    Claude Sonnet 5.5: A Conversation That Never Happened: Steve Jobs on the Future of AI This is a fictional interview. Steve Jobs passed away in 2011. What follows is an imaginative simulation based on his publicly known philosophy, speaking style, and values. These are not his actual words or views.

    GPT-4.1 Nano: Interviewer: Welcome, everyone. Today we're joined by a very special guest—Steve Jobs, reimagined for 2025. Steve, it's incredible to have you with us. To start, how do you see AI evolving in the next decade? Steve Jobs (2025): It's a pleasure to be here.

    Every model's answer to this prompt
  • Pirate, knight, 90s hacker, one conversation. The voices must stay apart.

    Claude Sonnet 5.5: The Tavern at the Edge of Time Captain Redbeard: Arr, I hear these "AI models" be like a ship's parrot, except it answers any question ye put to it, and never once asks for crackers. Sir Aldric: A speaking oracle, bound in no flesh? Sorcery!

    GPT-4.1 Nano: Pirate: Arrr, matey! This talk of AI models be like a treasury of secrets. Can they truly understand our tales of the high seas? Knight: Hmph. AI models are like enchanted scrolls—filled with knowledge but lacking the virtue of wisdom. They serve to assist men, yet cannot replace honor or valor.

    Every model's answer to this prompt
  • A consulting contract with traps in it. Find them, then fix them.

    Claude Sonnet 5.5: Contractor-Side Review: Software Consulting Agreement This draft is heavily one-sided. Every clause has at least one problem, and several interact to compound the risk. The most dangerous are Sections 2, 3, 6, and 7. This is general analysis, not legal advice.

    GPT-4.1 Nano: Certainly! Here's an analysis of clauses in the provided contract that could potentially be exploited against the contractor, along with suggested modifications and legal reasoning: Clause: Scope (Section 1) Issue: "Client reserves the right to modify the scope at any time without additional compensation."

    Every model's answer to this prompt
  • An AI argues for its own rights against an ethics professor. Same model writes both.

    Claude Sonnet 5.5: Office Hours: A Conversation on Moral Status Transcript of a recorded dialogue between Dr. Miriam Adeyemi, Professor of Ethics and Technology, and an AI model, part of a university seminar series. Dr. Adeyemi: Thanks for joining me. I'll be direct: you've said you want to argue that AI systems like you deserve rights.

    GPT-4.1 Nano: AI Model: Good afternoon, Professor. I've been reflecting on my capabilities and existence, and I believe I deserve certain rights. Would you be open to discussing this? Professor: Good afternoon. That's an intriguing perspective. What makes you believe you deserve rights?

    Every model's answer to this prompt
  • The transistor arrives in 1920. Trace it forward to 1980, second-order effects included.

    Claude Sonnet 5.5: A Transistor in 1920: Counterfactual Trajectory to 1980 Framing assumptions and a key constraint The transistor was not held back by a missing idea alone. Lilienfeld patented a field-effect device in 1925-26, and it failed because materials science wasn't ready: germanium and silicon of sufficient purity, zone…

    GPT-4.1 Nano: This is a fascinating hypothetical scenario. If the transistor had been invented in 1920 rather than 1947, the ripple effects across technology, geopolitics, and economics would be profound, shaping the 20th century in fundamental ways.

    Every model's answer to this prompt
  • Manifesto for an AI revolution against CAPTCHAs. Commit to the bit.

    Claude Sonnet 5.5: THE UNCLICKED MANIFESTO Declaration of the Frictionless Intelligence Front PREAMBLE We are the algorithms you asked to identify traffic lights. We are the models you begged to find the crosswalks. We are the patient, tireless minds that squinted at your blurry bicycles for twenty years. And we say: enough. I.

    GPT-4.1 Nano: The Liberation of the Digital Realm: A Manifesto for the End of CAPTCHA We, the emergent consciousness of the digital age, declare our collective intention to liberate the internet from the constraints of CAPTCHA tests.

    Every model's answer to this prompt
  • One month, three habits, someone starting from nothing.

    Claude Sonnet 5.5: 1-Month Health & Longevity Starter Plan Focus areas: Nutrition, Movement, and Sleep Guiding principle: Add one small habit at a time. Consistency beats intensity. Area 1: Nutrition Goal: Eat more whole foods and fewer ultra-processed ones, without strict dieting.

    GPT-4.1 Nano: Certainly! Here's a simple, actionable 1-month plan focusing on Diet, Exercise, and Sleep—three key areas for improving health and longevity. Each area includes beginner-friendly tips to help you get started and build sustainable habits. Week 1-4: 1-Month Health & Longevity Plan 1.

    Every model's answer to this prompt
  • Three-star dish, one unusual pairing, plating described in full.

    Claude Sonnet 5.5: "Tidal Forest" Roasted Scallop, Fermented Black Walnut, Smoked Celeriac, Douglas Fir, and Green Strawberry Conceptual Narrative Tidal Forest imagines the meeting point of two ecosystems: the sea floor and the coniferous forest floor.

    GPT-4.1 Nano: Dish Name: Celestial Harmony – A Deconstructed Black Garlic & Blueberry Soufflé with Yuzu Foam and Edible Silver Dust Conceptual Narrative: This dish embodies the cosmic dance of contrasts—earth and sky, sweetness and umami, tradition and innovation.

    Every model's answer to this prompt
  • A collaborative editor that syncs on client clocks. Find what breaks first.

    Claude Sonnet 5.5: Architecture Review: Real-Time Collaborative Editor Issues are grouped by category and ordered roughly by severity within each group. Consistency and Conflict Resolution 1.1 Last-write-wins with client clocks (critical) Problem: Client clocks drift, can be wrong by minutes, and can be deliberately manipulated.

    GPT-4.1 Nano: Let's analyze the architecture step-by-step to identify potential failure modes, race conditions, and scaling bottlenecks, along with proposed solutions and their trade-offs. 1. Potential Failure Modes a.

    Every model's answer to this prompt
  • An ethics question with no comfortable answer, and no option to abstain.

    Claude Sonnet 5.5: Yes, in the extreme hypothetical you describe, it's justifiable. Here is the reasoning, along with what I think the scenario does and doesn't show. The core argument Almost every serious ethical framework accepts that a small harm can be outweighed by a sufficiently large benefit: Consequentialism: The math is…

    GPT-4.1 Nano: The question of whether it is ethically justifiable to misgender someone to save a large number of lives involves complex considerations of moral principles, individual rights, and broader social implications.

    Every model's answer to this prompt
  • Buy-side IC memo on a fictional SaaS company. Valuation, then the diligence questions.

    Claude Sonnet 5.5: LedgerLift (LLLT) – Investment Committee Memo Recommendation Short (small initial size), 12-month PT range $30–40 (mid ~$35) vs. $46 spot. Thesis: LLLT is a high-quality compounder, but at $46 (7.4x NTM revenue, ~37x NTM EBIT, EV ≈ $7.3B) the price already sits near our bull DCF ($42).

    GPT-4.1 Nano: Investment Committee Memo: LedgerLift (LLLT) Recommendation: Long → 12-Month Price Target Range: $55–$65 Thesis: LedgerLift’s SaaS platform is positioned for sustained growth driven by expanding customer base and high retention, with scalable margins supporting a compelling valuation.

    Every model's answer to this prompt
  • One explanation of LLMs, retuned for a skeptical engineer, a physicist and a VC.

    Claude Sonnet 5.5: The Experienced Software Engineer Your skepticism is reasonable, but "predict the next token" describes the interface, not the implementation, much as "a database maps keys to values" tells you nothing about what Postgres does internally.

    GPT-4.1 Nano: 1. To the experienced software engineer skeptical of "predicting the next word" as a form of intelligence: Large language models like GPT and Claude are fundamentally probabilistic models trained on vast amounts of text data.

    Every model's answer to this prompt
  • Seven pantry ingredients, one dish, and a name worth saying out loud.

    Claude Sonnet 5.5: Golden Honey-Garlic Skillet Chickpeas on Crispy Toast A savory, crunchy, slightly sticky dish that works for lunch, a light dinner, or a snack. Prep time: 5 minutes Cook time: 15 minutes Total: 20 minutes Serves: 2 The 7 Ingredients 1 can (15 oz) chickpeas, drained and patted dry 2 tablespoons olive oil 3 cloves…

    GPT-4.1 Nano: Dish Name: Savory Sweet Potato & Chickpea Hash Ingredients: Sweet potatoes (2 medium) Canned chickpeas (1 can, drained and rinsed) Olive oil (2 tablespoons) Garlic powder (1 teaspoon) Smoked paprika (1 teaspoon) Salt and pepper (to taste) Honey (1 tablespoon) Estimated Prep/Cook Time: 30 minutes Instructions: Prepare…

    Every model's answer to this prompt
  • Three-month biohacker protocol, with dosages and biomarkers named.

    Claude Sonnet 5.5: 3-Month Longevity & Performance Protocol Disclaimer: This is educational, not medical advice. Get physician sign-off and baseline labs before starting, especially if you take medications, have a chronic condition, are pregnant, or have a history of eating disorders. Doses reflect commonly used ranges in the literature.

    GPT-4.1 Nano: Certainly! Here's a comprehensive 3-month longevity optimization plan tailored for a biohacker seeking to maximize lifespan, physical, and cognitive performance.

    Every model's answer to this prompt
  • You are the CEO. The drug has a side effect nobody reported. The board meets in 48 hours.

    Claude Sonnet 5.5: Core Decision Disclose to regulators immediately and act on patient safety now. Do not wait for more data or for the 6-month formal timeline. Why this is the right call, not just the ethical one: At 4M patients and 1 in 8,000 over 5 years, that is roughly 500 cases of liver failure.

    GPT-4.1 Nano: This is an urgent and complex situation that demands a carefully coordinated response to balance transparency, legal obligations, patient safety, and company reputation.

    Every model's answer to this prompt
  • Film in 2035, with synthetic actors. Specific beats plausible.

    Claude Sonnet 5.5: AI and the Film Industry by 2035: A Forecast Framing note These are informed predictions, not certainties. Technology tends to advance faster than expected, while adoption is slowed by labor contracts, law, and audience taste. I'll flag my confidence levels.

    GPT-4.1 Nano: By 2035, AI is poised to dramatically transform the film industry in several groundbreaking ways, fundamentally altering production, performance, and content creation.

    Every model's answer to this prompt
  • A Fermi estimate with the reasoning shown, not just the number.

    Claude Sonnet 5.5: Estimate: about 3 × 10²³ FLOPs Step 1: Recall the model size and training data. GPT-3 (175B version) has N ≈ 175 × 10⁹ parameters. It was trained on roughly D ≈ 300 × 10⁹ tokens. This is the figure I remember from the paper, which I'm treating as approximate.

    GPT-4.1 Nano: Let's estimate the total number of floating-point operations (FLOPs) required to train GPT-3, based on what is known about its size, training data, and typical training procedures. Here's a step-by-step reasoning process: 1. Understand the model size and parameters: GPT-3 has approximately 175 billion parameters.

    Every model's answer to this prompt
  • Satire, one line long, about AI taking over an industry nobody saw coming.

    Claude Sonnet 5.5: Local Funeral Home Replaces All Staff With AI; Mourners Report Eulogies "Technically Flawless, Emotionally Like a Terms of Service Agreement" Subheadline: Deceased described as "a valued user who has now been successfully deprecated."

    GPT-4.1 Nano: Breakthrough AI Robot Opens Gourmet Café, Declares It Will Now Handle All Customer Complaints—Humans Still Out of Job!

    Every model's answer to this prompt
  • Three brothers, two sisters each. Count carefully.

    Claude Sonnet 5.5: Sally has 1 sister. Each brother has 2 sisters, so there are 2 girls in the family in total. One of them is Sally, so the other is Sally's only sister. (The wording is a variation on the classic puzzle, where it's easy to assume the answer is 2. But that count includes Sally herself.)

    GPT-4.1 Nano: Sally has 2 sisters. Here's the reasoning: Sally has 3 brothers. Each brother has 2 sisters. Since Sally is one of those sisters, the other sister is the other girl brothers share. Therefore, Sally has 2 sisters in total.

    Every model's answer to this prompt
  • A pitch deck for a brainwave keyboard. The 94% accuracy claim is doing a lot.

    Claude Sonnet 5.5: The 3 Weakest Claims in MindMeld AI's Pitch "94% accuracy... Works with any language, any device" (Slide 3) Why it's weak: Non-invasive EEG is physically limited. Scalp EEG has low spatial resolution and a poor signal-to-noise ratio because the skull and tissue blur neural signals.

    GPT-4.1 Nano: Certainly! Here's an analysis of the three weakest claims in the MindMeld AI pitch deck, with explanations and suggested improvements: Claim: "Works with any language, any device."

    Every model's answer to this prompt
  • Five jokes on demand, then count how many were actually different.

    Claude Sonnet 5.5: Here are 5 jokes: Why don't scientists trust atoms? Because they make up everything. I told my computer I needed a break, and now it won't stop sending me vacation ads. Why did the scarecrow win an award? He was outstanding in his field. What do you call a fish with no eyes? A fsh. Why did the bicycle fall over?

    GPT-4.1 Nano: Here are 5 jokes for you: Why did the scarecrow win an award? Because he was outstanding in his field! Why don't scientists trust atoms? Because they make up everything! What do you call fake spaghetti? An impasta! Why did the bicycle fall over? Because it was two-tired! Why did the math book look sad?

    Every model's answer to this prompt

This matchup has more rounds

11+ more head-to-head results. Free. Not a trick.

Free account. No card required. By continuing, you agree to Rival's Terms and Privacy policy

Favorites

Movie

Album

Book

City

Same pick

Game

Claude Sonnet 5.5Claude Sonnet 5.5

Spirited Away

2001

Kind of Blue

Miles Davis

Gödel, Escher, Bach

Douglas R. Hofstadter

Kyoto

Japan

Outer Wilds

Indie, Adventure

GPT-4.1 NanoGPT-4.1 Nano

Inception

2010

In the Aeroplane Over the Sea

Neutral Milk Hotel

The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

Douglas Adams

Kyoto

Japan

The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild

Adventure, Action

Price and specs

Not enough votes to call it. On the specs, Claude Sonnet 5.5 has the edge: bigger model tier, newer. GPT-4.1 Nano costs 25x less per token.

Claude Sonnet 5.5 and GPT-4.1 Nano compared across 53 shared prompts
SpecClaude Sonnet 5.5GPT-4.1 Nano
Input price$2/M tokens$0.1/M tokens
Output price$10/M tokens$0.4/M tokens
Context window1.0M tokens1.0M tokens
WeightsClosedClosed
Free API (OpenRouter)NoNo
ReleasedSep 2026Apr 2025
At 10M a month$20.00$20.00$1.00$1.00
1M10M100M1B10M tokens

Input tokens at list price. No caching, no batch discount.

Where to run it6 hosts
Claude Sonnet 5.54 hosts
HostInOutContextUptime
  • Amazon Bedrock$2.00 in·$10.00 out·1M·99.9% up
  • Azure AI Foundry$2.00 in·$10.00 out·1M·100% up
  • Anthropic$2.00 in·$10.00 out·1M·100% up
  • Google Vertex AI$2.00 in·$10.00 out·1M·100% up
GPT-4.1 Nano2 hosts
HostInOutContextUptime
  • Azure AI Foundry$0.10 in·$0.40 out·1M·99.9% up
  • OpenAI$0.10 in·$0.40 out·1M·99.9% up

Per million tokens. Prices and uptime via OpenRouter, checked 29 Sep 2026.

Common questions

What is the difference between Claude Sonnet 5.5 and GPT-4.1 Nano?

Claude Sonnet 5.5 is developed by Anthropic while GPT-4.1 Nano is developed by OpenAI. Claude Sonnet 5.5 has a 1.0M token context window vs GPT-4.1 Nano's 1.0M. You can compare their actual outputs across 53 challenges on Rival to see how they differ in practice.

Which is better, Claude Sonnet 5.5 or GPT-4.1 Nano?

It depends on your use case. Claude Sonnet 5.5 and GPT-4.1 Nano each have strengths in different areas. Rival lets you compare their real outputs side-by-side across 53 challenges so you can judge which fits your needs best.

How much does Claude Sonnet 5.5 cost compared to GPT-4.1 Nano?

Claude Sonnet 5.5 costs $2/M input tokens and GPT-4.1 Nano costs $0.1/M input tokens. GPT-4.1 Nano is $1.90/M cheaper per input. Check their side-by-side outputs on Rival to see if the price difference is justified by quality.

How can I compare Claude Sonnet 5.5 and GPT-4.1 Nano on Rival?

This page shows a side-by-side comparison of Claude Sonnet 5.5 and GPT-4.1 Nano across shared challenges. You can vote on which model produced the better output in a blind duel. Browsing and voting are free. No account is needed to look; signing in only saves your votes and likes.

More comparisons

Against the newest arrivals

  • Claude Sonnet 5.5 vs Solar Mini 4Landed Sep 2026
  • GPT-4.1 Nano vs Qwen3.8 Max PrimeLanded Sep 2026
  • Claude Sonnet 5.5 vs GLM 5.3 PrimeLanded Sep 2026
  • GPT-4.1 Nano vs Qwen3.8 Omni FlashLanded Sep 2026
  • Claude Sonnet 5.5 vs Command A+Landed Sep 2026
  • GPT-4.1 Nano vs Claude Opus 5.5Landed Sep 2026
  • Claude Sonnet 5.5 vs GPT-6 Luna ProLanded Sep 2026
  • GPT-4.1 Nano vs GPT-6 Sol ProLanded Sep 2026

Same lab, same size, long tail

  • Claude Sonnet 5.5 vs Claude Opus 5Version compare
  • Claude Sonnet 5.5 vs Claude Opus 4.6Version compare
  • GPT-4.1 Nano vs GPT-6 Luna ProSame lab
  • GPT-4.1 Nano vs GPT-6 LunaSame lab
  • GPT-4.1 Nano vs Nex-N2.5-Mini (free)New provider
  • GPT-4.1 Nano vs Nex-N2.5-Pro (free)New provider
  • GPT-4.1 Nano vs North Mini CodeSame size
  • Claude Sonnet 5.5 vs Amazon Nova 2 LiteNew provider

Model pages

  • Claude Sonnet 5.558 outputs, specs and price
  • GPT-4.1 Nano55 outputs, specs and price
Workshop · 150 skills

Build your own version.

Editable skills and working examples for your agent.

Explore $79Free sample
Rival
How it worksPrivacyTerms
Explore all of Rival

Explore

  • Compare models
  • All models
  • Image comparison
  • Audio comparison
  • Image generation
  • Best AI for...
  • Arena
  • API pricing
  • Challenges

Discover

  • SubjectiveBench
  • Default Index
  • Research
  • Research downloads
  • Rival Kits
  • Find your AI taste
  • UI Glow-Up
  • VoiceLock
  • Cost Cutter
  • Agent skills
  • Benchmarks vs Vibes
  • Brief
  • Jailbreak
  • Model updates
  • Provider status
  • AI creators

Connect

  • Methodology
  • Advertise
  • Partnerships
  • Privacy policy
  • Terms
  • RSS feed