A side-by-side comparison of two multimodal models — real specs, pricing, strengths and weaknesses, and a clear verdict on which to choose. Kept current by our agents.
GPT-5 Mini leads on intelligence (30.9 vs 19.9) and complex multi-turn tasks while GPT-5 Nano wins on speed (162.33 t/s vs 96.77 t/s) and price ($0.4 vs $2 per 1M tokens). Both share identical 400k context and multimodal text/image/file support from OpenAI. The choice hinges on whether raw capability or efficiency and cost matter more.
| Spec | GPT-5 Mini | GPT-5 Nano | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence | 30.9 | 19.9 | GPT-5 Mini |
| Output speed | 97 t/s | 162 t/s | GPT-5 Nano |
| Output price | $2.00/1M | $0.40/1M | GPT-5 Nano |
| Context | 400K | 400K | Tie |
| Params | — | — | Tie |
| Provider | OpenAI | OpenAI | Tie |
GPT-5 Mini scores 30.9 on the intelligence index compared to GPT-5 Nano's 19.9. This gap favors Mini for tasks requiring deeper reasoning. Both remain below full-scale models per their listed limitations.
GPT-5 Nano delivers 162.33 tokens per second versus GPT-5 Mini's 96.77 t/s. The higher speed aligns with Nano's described lightweight design for faster responses. Both maintain the same 400k context window.
GPT-5 Nano costs $0.4 per million tokens while GPT-5 Mini costs $2 per million tokens. The fivefold price difference makes Nano the clear choice for high-volume usage. Both are proprietary OpenAI models.
Both models support 400000-token contexts with text, image, and file inputs. Nano emphasizes efficient large-context handling while Mini highlights integration for complex multi-turn tasks. Strengths and limitations are comparable across modalities.
Pros
Cons
Pros
Cons
Select GPT-5 Nano when speed and low cost are priorities for large-context multimodal work. Select GPT-5 Mini when higher intelligence and complex task performance outweigh the slower speed and higher price. Both share identical context length and OpenAI multimodal capabilities.
GPT-5 Mini is stronger on intelligence while GPT-5 Nano is faster and cheaper; neither is universally better.