AI Models · Paid vs Paid

GPT-4.1 Paid vs GPT-3.5 Turbo 16k Paid

GPT-4.1 vs GPT-3.5 Turbo 16k compared — price per token, context window, multimodality, openness and which to choose. Full 2026 breakdown.

Prices & specs refreshed from live data · olud.ai

Open-model prices = cheapest provider via OpenRouter; official maker rates may be higher.

GPT-4.1PaidOpenAI
$2 /M input
$8 /M outputManaged API (no infra to run)
TypeProprietary
Context window1M tokens
MultimodalYes
Self-hostNo
GPT-3.5 Turbo 16kPaidOpenAI
$3 /M input
$4 /M outputManaged API (no infra to run)
TypeProprietary
Context window16K tokens
MultimodalNo
Self-hostNo
Choose GPT-3.5 Turbo 16k for the lower output price ($4/M vs $8/M). Choose GPT-4.1 if you need the larger 1M context window.

GPT-4.1 vs GPT-3.5 Turbo 16k specs

SpecGPT-4.1GPT-3.5 Turbo 16kWinner
MakerOpenAIOpenAI
TypeProprietaryProprietary
Context window1M tokens16K tokensGPT-4.1
Input price$2/M$3/MGPT-4.1
Output price$8/M$4/MGPT-3.5 Turbo 16k
Vision / multimodalYesNoGPT-4.1
Tool / function callingYesYes= Tie
Self-hostableNo (API only)No (API only)
LicenseProprietaryProprietary

Price gap & when to choose each

2.0×cheaper per output token

GPT-3.5 Turbo 16k is ~2.0× cheaper than GPT-4.1 on output tokens ($4 vs $8 per M tokens).

Choose GPT-4.1 if…
  • You want frontier performance through a managed API
  • You need the longer 1M context window
  • You value reliability & ecosystem
  • You don't want to manage infrastructure
Choose GPT-3.5 Turbo 16k if…
  • You want frontier performance through a managed API
  • You want the lower output price
  • You value reliability & ecosystem
  • You don't want to manage infrastructure

Feature comparison

CapabilityGPT-4.1GPT-3.5 Turbo 16k
Open weights (downloadable)
Self-hostable
Runs fully offline
Vision / multimodal
Tool / function calling
1M+ context window

Benchmarks: GPT-4.1 vs GPT-3.5 Turbo 16k

Independent benchmark scores measured by Artificial Analysis. Higher is better (except latency).

GPT-4.1
GPT-3.5 Turbo 16k
Intelligence index
12.7
Math index
34.7
GPQA
66.6%
MMLU-Pro
80.6%
Humanity's Last Exam
4.2%
Long Context Reasoning
68.3%
LiveCodeBench
45.7%
MATH-500
91.3%
AIME
43.7%
AIME 2025
34.7%
IFBench
43%
τ²-Bench
47.1%
Terminal-Bench Hard
13.6%
Speed
0 tok/s
Latency
0s
Intelligence per $
3.6

Benchmark data by Artificial Analysis.

How GPT-4.1 and GPT-3.5 Turbo 16k score

🏆 Best value & openness: GPT-4.1 (3.2 vs 2.4 / 5)
CriterionGPT-4.1GPT-3.5 Turbo 16k
Cost-efficiency3.54.0
Context window5.02.0
Openness1.51.5
Self-hosting1.01.0
Multimodality5.03.5

Scores come from live data — output price (cost), context length, open vs closed weights (openness & self-hosting) and vision/tool support (multimodality). Raw task quality isn't scored here; it depends on your benchmark — see the verdict.

What each model is

GPT-4.1 Paid

OpenAI · Proprietary

GPT-4.1 is a flagship large language model optimized for advanced instruction following, real-world software engineering, and long-context reasoning. It supports a 1 million token context window and outperforms GPT-4o and...

GPT-3.5 Turbo 16k Paid

OpenAI · Proprietary

This model offers four times the context length of gpt-3.5-turbo, allowing it to support approximately 20 pages of text in a single request at a higher cost. Training data: up...

Other models in these families

These variants are tracked but not compared here — one page per family keeps the comparison readable.

Other variants tracked
GPT-4.1 (batch)GPT-4.1 MiniGPT-4.1 Mini (batch)GPT-4.1 NanoGPT-4.1 Nano (batch)

Frequently asked questions

GPT-4.1 vs GPT-3.5 Turbo 16k — which is cheaper?

GPT-3.5 Turbo 16k is cheaper on output ($4/M vs $8/M).

Which has the larger context window?

GPT-4.1 offers the larger context window (1M tokens).

GPT-4.1 vs GPT-3.5 Turbo 16k — which should I pick in 2026?

Choose GPT-3.5 Turbo 16k for the lower output price ($4/M vs $8/M). Choose GPT-4.1 if you need the larger 1M context window.

People also compare

Explore more open-source AI

Browse the full open-source model leaderboard, thousands of tools and live benchmarks — all in one place.

Open the leaderboard →