Skip to main content
Van Data Team

text model comparison

GPT-4.1 nano vs Muse Ember

GPT-4.1 nano and Muse Ember are both current text models, from OpenAI and Meta. Both cost $0.10 per 1M input tokens. Both accept about 1.05M tokens of context (1,047,576 and 1,048,576).

Longer context window
Muse Ember1.05M tokens against 1.05M tokens
Newer release
Muse EmberNov 2026 against Apr 2025

Data verified November 10, 2026 · Dataset 2026-11-10

Share this

Side by side

GPT-4.1 nano and Muse Ember, line by line

Prices in effect today, compared at the same tier wherever both list one. The better value in each row is highlighted.

FactGPT-4.1 nanoMuse Ember
Price
Price per 1M input tokens$0.10$0.10
Price per 1M output tokens$0.40 (better)$0.50
Independent benchmarks
Arena Text1322 Elo (#53 of 53)Not measured
GPQA Diamond48.9% (#43 of 43)Not measured
SimpleQA Verified6% (#40 of 40)Not measured
Arena WebDevNot measured1608 Elo (#26 of 48)
Specs
ProviderOpenAIMeta
Release dateApril 14, 2025November 9, 2026
AccessAPI onlyAPI only
Context window1,047,576 tokens1,048,576 tokens
Max output32,768 tokens524,288 tokens
Inputtext, imagetext, image, audio, video
Outputtexttext

No independent benchmark has scored both models yet. Each rank counts the current models scored on that benchmark.

Scores:Arena · 2026-11-10Epoch AI · 2026-11-10

Charts

Against every current text model

Where GPT-4.1 nano and Muse Ember land among the current models of their task, on every independent benchmark, on price and on context.

Where each stands

Only GPT-4.1 nano has a current Arena Text score: #53 of 53. Each bar is the share of current models it beats.

GPT-4.1 nano and Muse Ember among the current text models, one row per benchmark, price and context window.

Independent benchmarks

Arena Text

GPT-4.1 nano:#53of 53

1,322 Elo · ahead of 0%

Muse Ember: Not scored

Arena WebDev

GPT-4.1 nano: Not scored

Muse Ember:#26of 48

1,608 Elo · ahead of 47%

GPQA Diamond

GPT-4.1 nano:#43of 43

48.9% · ahead of 0%

Muse Ember: Not scored

SimpleQA Verified

GPT-4.1 nano:#40of 40

6% · ahead of 0%

Muse Ember: Not scored

Price and context

Price per 1M input tokens

GPT-4.1 nano:#1of 61

$0.10 · cheaper than 95%

Muse Ember:#1of 61

$0.10 · cheaper than 95%

Price per 1M output tokens

GPT-4.1 nano:#2of 61

$0.40 · cheaper than 98%

Muse Ember:#3of 61

$0.50 · cheaper than 92%

Context window

GPT-4.1 nano:#25of 70

1.05M tokens · longer than 62%

Muse Ember:#12of 70

1.05M tokens · longer than 67%

Scores fromArena · 2026-11-10Epoch AI · 2026-11-10

Quality against price

Arena Text · measured November 9, 2026

GPT-4.1 nano scores 1,322 at $0.175 (blended price per 1M tokens). The line joins the current models no other beats on both price and Arena Text score; hover any point to name it.

Quality against priceArena Text score against price for 45 text models, GPT-4.1 nano and Muse Ember marked.1,2501,3001,3501,4001,4501,5001,550$0.30$1$3$10MOST ATTRACTIVE QUADRANTMedian price $3Median 1,473Blended price per 1M tokens (3 input : 1 output), log scaleArena Text (Elo)GPT-4.1 nano
Quality against price: the data
Arena Text score against price for 45 text models, GPT-4.1 nano and Muse Ember marked.
ModelProviderBlended price per 1M tokensArena Text (Elo)
Gemini 4 CarbonGoogle$41,526
Gemini 4 ArgonGoogle$41,522
Muse WonderMeta$81,511
Claude Opus 5.5Anthropic$81,506
Claude Fable 5Anthropic$201,504
Claude Fable 5.1Anthropic$201,503
Gemini 3.8 FlashGoogle$1.501,497
Muse Spark 1.3Meta$21,496
Claude Opus 5Anthropic$101,490
Kimi K3Moonshot Kimi$61,487
GPT-5.6 SolOpenAI$81,485
Qwen3.8-MaxAlibaba Qwen$31,484
Gemini 3.6 FlashGoogle$31,483
GLM-5.3Z.ai$2.151,483
Claude Opus 4.8Anthropic$101,482
GPT-6.1 SolOpenAI$41,482
GPT-5.5OpenAI$111,481
MiMo-V2.6-ProXiaomi MiMo$0.541,480
GPT-5.4OpenAI$5.631,475
DeepSeek-V4.1-FlashDeepSeek$0.521,475
GPT-6 AstraOpenAI$201,474
GLM-5.3-FlashZ.ai$0.241,474
Gemini 3 Flash PreviewGoogle$1.131,473
Grok 4.20xAI$1.561,472
Claude Sonnet 5.5Anthropic$41,472
GPT-5.6 TerraOpenAI$4.501,468
Grok 4.5xAI$31,466
DeepSeek-V4-ProDeepSeek$1.981,464
Claude Sonnet 5Anthropic$41,461
GPT-6 SolOpenAI$41,457
Grok 4.6xAI$31,456
Gemini 3.5 Flash-LiteGoogle$0.851,455
GPT-5.6 LunaOpenAI$0.451,453
MiMo-V2.6-FlashXiaomi MiMo$0.181,448
Step 5 PreviewStepFun$1.431,448
Grok 4.3xAI$1.561,442
Grok 4.7xAI$31,442
GPT-6 LunaOpenAI$0.201,441
Mistral Large 4Mistral AI$1.051,423
Claude Haiku 5.5Anthropic$0.201,422
GPT-4.1OpenAI$3.501,415
Inkling 2 SmallThinking Machines Lab$0.471,412
Solar Pro 4Upstage$0.521,387
GPT-4.1 miniOpenAI$0.701,383
GPT-4.1 nanoOpenAI$0.181,322

Cost

What each costs

Example workloads at each provider's listed rates, then every other rate either one lists. The cheaper figure in each row is highlighted.

The same work, priced

For 10M input and 2M output tokens, Muse Ember costs 1.1 times as much as GPT-4.1 nano, at each provider's listed rates.

What GPT-4.1 nano and Muse Ember cost for the same work, at the rates each provider lists.

  • 10M input and 2M output tokens

    Muse Ember costs 1.1× as much

    GPT-4.1 nano
    $1.80
    Muse Ember
    $2

  • The same, with 9M of the input tokens cached

    Muse Ember costs 1.0× as much

    GPT-4.1 nano
    $1.13
    Muse Ember
    $1.14
Workload or rateGPT-4.1 nanoMuse Ember
Example workloads
10M input and 2M output tokens$1.80 (better)$2
The same, with 9M of the input tokens cached$1.13 (better)$1.14
Other listed rates
1M input tokens, cached$0.025$0.004 (better)
1M input tokens, cached, prompts over 200K tokensNot listed$0.012
1M input tokens, prompts over 200K tokensNot listed$0.30
1M output tokens, prompts over 200K tokensNot listed$1.50

Your own bill will differ. These figures use list prices and example workloads. The AI Model Cost Audit reviews your real usage, shortlists models that score as well for each task for less, and estimates the savings.

Launch price $100, regular price $150

Book the cost audit

Verdict

When to choose each

GPT-4.1 nano

Where it leads

  • Lower price per 1M output tokens, $0.40 vs $0.50

Best for

  • High-volume API screening at low published token prices

Watch out for

  • Not in the pinned LiveBench snapshot; its independent scores here come from Epoch AI's own GPQA Diamond, FrontierMath and SimpleQA Verified runs
Full GPT-4.1 nano profile

Muse Ember

Where it leads

  • Longer responses, up to 524,288 vs 32,768 output tokens
  • Accepts audio and video input
  • Cheaper cached input, $0.004 vs $0.025 per 1M tokens

Best for

  • Sub-agent work under a larger planner such as Muse Spark or Muse Wonder
  • High-volume extraction, classification and routing over images, documents and records

Watch out for

  • A request over 200K input tokens is billed in full at three times the rate: $0.30 input, $1.50 output and $0.012 cached input per 1M tokens
  • Claude Haiku 5.5 scores higher on FrontierCode 2.0 as run by Artificial Analysis (34.9% against 27.2%), a row in Meta's own launch post
  • Arena Text has not rated it yet, and its WebDev rating rests on 1,345 votes so far
Full Muse Ember profile

From benchmark to production

Building on GPT-4.1 nano or Muse Ember?

Public scores rarely hold on your own data. We test both models on your real tasks, then build the agent or pipeline around the one that wins.

AI Model Cost AuditLaunch price $100, regular price $150What the audit includes

Book the cost auditAI agent development

FAQ

GPT-4.1 nano vs Muse Ember FAQ

Which is cheaper, GPT-4.1 nano or Muse Ember?

Both cost $0.10 per 1M input tokens. For 10M input and 2M output tokens, GPT-4.1 nano costs $1.80 and Muse Ember $2 at standard rates.

Which is cheaper with prompt caching, GPT-4.1 nano or Muse Ember?

GPT-4.1 nano charges $0.025 per 1M cached input tokens, 75% below its standard input rate, and Muse Ember $0.004, 96% below. With 9M of 10M input tokens cached and 2M output tokens, GPT-4.1 nano costs $1.13 and Muse Ember $1.14.

Which has the larger context window, GPT-4.1 nano or Muse Ember?

Both accept about 1.05M tokens of context (1,047,576 and 1,048,576). Muse Ember returns up to 524,288 tokens per response, GPT-4.1 nano 32,768.

How do GPT-4.1 nano and Muse Ember differ in features?

GPT-4.1 nano takes text and image input; Muse Ember takes text, image, audio and video.

Further reading

More on GPT-4.1 nano and Muse Ember

Related comparisons

Production evaluation

Choosing between GPT-4.1 nano and Muse Ember?

Public benchmarks narrow the shortlist. We run both on your own tasks, data and cost limits, then build the routing and review controls to run the winner in production.

  • A head-to-head evaluation on your real workload
  • Routing between models by cost and difficulty
Compare all modelsBook a consultation