Model comparison

GPT-4.1 nano vs Wizardlm 13b

Wizardlm 13b is the stronger model overall, scoring 31.4 to 27.9 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 10 shared benchmarks.

GPT-4.1 nano OpenAI

27.9

Rank #327 Confirmed

Wizardlm 13b Microsoft

31.4

Rank #274 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 10 benchmarks with published results for both. GPT-4.1 nano scores higher in 3 categories and Wizardlm 13b in 4 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in multilingual, where GPT-4.1 nano leads 41.6 to 27.1.
  • Wizardlm 13b has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

GPT-4.1 nano and Wizardlm 13b specifications
GPT-4.1 nanoWizardlm 13b
ProviderOpenAIMicrosoft
Noometry Index27.931.4
Released2025-04-14—
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window1.05M—
Max output33K—
Input $ / M tokens$0.10—
Output $ / M tokens$0.40—
Results tracked3810

Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry

Category by category

Coding Wizardlm 13b leads

GPT-4.1 nano: 24.1 (#330), Wizardlm 13b: 30.1 (#298)

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkGPT-4.1 nanoWizardlm 13b
LMArena Coding13061035
Aider Polyglot8.9%—
SciCode25.9%—
WeirdML19%—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

GPT-4.1 nano: 26.5 (#104), Wizardlm 13b: —

Agentic & Tool Use benchmarks
BenchmarkGPT-4.1 nanoWizardlm 13b
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard33%—

Reasoning Wizardlm 13b leads

GPT-4.1 nano: 8.5 (#349), Wizardlm 13b: 19.4 (#259)

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkGPT-4.1 nanoWizardlm 13b
LMArena Hard Prompts12861018
ARC-AGI-20%—
Kagi LLM Benchmark33.3%—
ARC-AGI-10%—
CritPt0%—
DTBench52.5%—
LMCA5.5%—
Epoch Capabilities Index129.62—

Math Wizardlm 13b leads

GPT-4.1 nano: 26.9 (#252), Wizardlm 13b: 30.2 (#238)

Math benchmarks
BenchmarkGPT-4.1 nanoWizardlm 13b
LMArena Math12741017
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202528.9%—
Omni-MATH36.7%—
MATH Level 570%—
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)1%—

Knowledge Not comparable

GPT-4.1 nano: 21.8 (#273), Wizardlm 13b: —

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkGPT-4.1 nanoWizardlm 13b
GPQA Diamond48.9%—
SimpleQA Verified6%—
MMLU-Pro55%—
GPQA (HELM)50.7%—
LMArena Expert1272—

Multimodal Not comparable

GPT-4.1 nano: 29.2 (#113), Wizardlm 13b: —

Multimodal benchmarks
BenchmarkGPT-4.1 nanoWizardlm 13b
LMArena Vision1063—

Multilingual GPT-4.1 nano leads

GPT-4.1 nano: 41.6 (#205), Wizardlm 13b: 27.1 (#277)

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkGPT-4.1 nanoWizardlm 13b
LMArena Non-English12601034
LMArena Chinese12701023
LMArena German1288—
LMArena Japanese1198—
LMArena Russian1261—

Instruction Following GPT-4.1 nano leads

GPT-4.1 nano: 67.8 (#193), Wizardlm 13b: 53.5 (#285)

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkGPT-4.1 nanoWizardlm 13b
LMArena Instruction Following12671048
IFEval84.3%—

Long Context Wizardlm 13b leads

GPT-4.1 nano: 23.7 (#296), Wizardlm 13b: 32.0 (#273)

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkGPT-4.1 nanoWizardlm 13b
LMArena Longer Query12831054
Fiction.LiveBench25%—

Writing & Preference GPT-4.1 nano leads

GPT-4.1 nano: 40.5 (#243), Wizardlm 13b: 30.5 (#287)

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkGPT-4.1 nanoWizardlm 13b
LMArena Text12851077
LMArena Creative Writing12601091
LMArena Multi-Turn12771047
EQ-Bench Creative Writing946—
WildBench81.2%—

Frequently asked questions

Is GPT-4.1 nano better than Wizardlm 13b?

Wizardlm 13b is the stronger model overall, scoring 31.4 to 27.9 on the Noometry Index.

Is GPT-4.1 nano or Wizardlm 13b better for coding?

Wizardlm 13b scores higher on coding benchmarks: 30.1 versus 24.1 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do GPT-4.1 nano and Wizardlm 13b share?

10 benchmarks have published results for both models. GPT-4.1 nano has 38 scored results on Noometry and Wizardlm 13b has 10.

Related comparisons

Go deeper