Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

Claude Opus 4.1 vs GPT-5.2

GPT-5.2 leads Claude Opus 4.1 on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index, 30.4 to 22.8, and GPT-5.2 costs 5.4x less per output token ($14.00 vs $75.00 per million). Updated October 22, 2026; 69 benchmarks have a result for both.

Replace Claude Opus 4.1 Replace GPT-5.2
Claude Opus 4.1Anthropic
Coding
No data
Overall
50.2
Output $/M
$75.00
24
GPT-5.2OpenAI
Coding
55.9
Overall
60.7
Output $/M
$14.00
44
vs boards won of 69 shared, 1 tied

Claude Opus 4.1 or GPT-5.2: which to pick

Only GPT-5.2 has a coding score, 55.9 on the Vibe Coding Index; Claude Opus 4.1 has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding.

Pick Claude Opus 4.1 for work measured by LMArena Text: coding or LMArena Text: software and IT, where it leads.

Model AClaude Opus 4.1AnthropicNot benchmarked1 independent benchmarkNo cost per solved taskModel BGPT-5.2OpenAI55.9/1003 independent benchmarks$1.91 per solved task
Shared results
69
Claude Opus 4.1 only
4
GPT-5.2 only
45
Like-for-like categories
8 of 9

Only benchmarks that tested both models count toward a pick; a result only one model has is shown but not compared.

Which one for your work

Each card is decided by one number both models carry. Where only one has it, the card says so and makes no call.

At a glance

Coding index
Claude Opus 4.1 not benchmarked, GPT-5.2 55.9 from 3 benchmarks.
Widest category
Math, 19.0 points apart on average over 7 shared benchmarks.
Widest single gap
FrontierMath, tiers 1 to 3: Claude Opus 4.1 12.6% against GPT-5.2 67.4%, 54.8 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
Output price
Claude Opus 4.1 $75.00 against GPT-5.2 $14.00 per million output tokens, 5.4x apart.
Context window
Claude Opus 4.1 takes 200K tokens, GPT-5.2 400K.

Benchmark by benchmark

First the score: boards each model leads, per category, where both have a result. Then every board, a category to a fold; bars are each result on a 0 to 100 scale, so compare the two in a row, not one row with another.

Boards won, where both have a result
CategoryClaude Opus 4.1BarsGPT-5.2Ties
Coding25
Intelligence02
Agentic work12
Reasoning37
Math16
Knowledge29
Web design341 tie
General129
All shared boards24441 tie
CodingLike-for-likeSix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index25
Coding benchmarks for Claude Opus 4.1 and GPT-5.2
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.1GPT-5.2Leader
SWE-bench VerifiedNot measured72.8%Only GPT-5.2 measured
SWE-bench MultilingualNot measured66.7%Only GPT-5.2 measured
LMArena WebDev13901417GPT-5.2
LiveCodeBench (Vals AI)66.5%85.4%GPT-5.2
SWE-bench Verified (Vals AI)Not measured75.8%Only GPT-5.2 measured
Vibe Code Bench (Vals AI)Not measured53.5%Only GPT-5.2 measured
LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run)Not measured89.4%Only GPT-5.2 measured
Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run)Not measured47.0%Only GPT-5.2 measured
Terminal-Bench38.0%64.9%GPT-5.2
GSO-BenchNot measured27.5%Only GPT-5.2 measured
WeirdML45.9%72.2%GPT-5.2
Cybench42.0%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
ALE-BenchNot measured1293.5Only GPT-5.2 measured
LMArena Text: coding14791442Claude Opus 4.1
LMArena Text: software and IT14561434Claude Opus 4.1
LMArena WebDev: HTML13991427GPT-5.2
SciCode4.6%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 22 boards here
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index02
Intelligence benchmarks for Claude Opus 4.1 and GPT-5.2
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.1GPT-5.2Leader
AA Intelligence Index22.830.4GPT-5.2
Epoch Capabilities Index144.1153.7GPT-5.2
Agentic workLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index12
Agentic work benchmarks for Claude Opus 4.1 and GPT-5.2
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.1GPT-5.2Leader
Design Arena: agents building web appsNot measured1086Only GPT-5.2 measured
Design Arena: agents building full-stack appsNot measured1043Only GPT-5.2 measured
Design Arena: agents building mobile appsNot measured1093Only GPT-5.2 measured
Design Arena: agents building Android appsNot measured1059Only GPT-5.2 measured
Design Arena: agents building Godot gamesNot measured1142Only GPT-5.2 measured
τ²-Bench TelecomNot measured84.8%Only GPT-5.2 measured
METR time horizons66.8%75.3%GPT-5.2
Remote Labor IndexNot measured2.5%Only GPT-5.2 measured
GDPval43.6%49.7%GPT-5.2
DeepResearch Bench48.3%41.1%Claude Opus 4.1
Vending-Bench 2Not measured$3,591Only GPT-5.2 measured
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard (BFCL)Not measured55.9%Only GPT-5.2 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 29 boards here
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index37
Reasoning benchmarks for Claude Opus 4.1 and GPT-5.2
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.1GPT-5.2Leader
GPQA Diamond76.3%91.7%GPT-5.2
MMMU Pro (Vals AI)77.5%86.7%GPT-5.2
GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run)Not measured90.3%Only GPT-5.2 measured
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)Not measured37.7%Only GPT-5.2 measured
GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run)77.3%91.4%GPT-5.2
ARC-AGINot measured86.2%Only GPT-5.2 measured
ARC-AGI-2Not measured52.9%Only GPT-5.2 measured
SimpleBench60.0%45.8%Claude Opus 4.1
Chess puzzlesNot measured48.0%Only GPT-5.2 measured
Mystery game puzzles21.0%23.0%GPT-5.2
EBR-bench7.9%23.0%GPT-5.2
VPCT35.0%84.0%GPT-5.2
LMArena Text: hard prompts14421428Claude Opus 4.1
LMArena Text: expert14381445GPT-5.2
LMArena Text: hard prompts in English14511431Claude Opus 4.1
LMArena Vision: diagramsNot measured1265Only GPT-5.2 measured
LMArena Vision: homeworkNot measured1276Only GPT-5.2 measured
Kagi LLM BenchmarkNot measured73.3%Only GPT-5.2 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 4 boards here
MathLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index16
Math benchmarks for Claude Opus 4.1 and GPT-5.2
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.1GPT-5.2Leader
AIME78.2%96.9%GPT-5.2
MATH 500 (Vals AI)95.4%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
MGSM (Vals AI)94.4%94.0%Claude Opus 4.1
AA Math IndexNot measured99.0Only GPT-5.2 measured
AIME 2025 (Artificial Analysis run)Not measured99.0%Only GPT-5.2 measured
OTIS Mock AIME68.9%96.1%GPT-5.2
FrontierMath, tiers 1 to 312.6%67.4%GPT-5.2
FrontierMath, tier 42.4%31.7%GPT-5.2
ProofBenchNot measured15.0%Only GPT-5.2 measured
LMArena Text: math14311440GPT-5.2
LMArena Text: mathematical work14341442GPT-5.2
Neither model has a result on the other 2 boards here
KnowledgeLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index29
Knowledge benchmarks for Claude Opus 4.1 and GPT-5.2
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.1GPT-5.2Leader
MMLU Pro87.9%86.2%Claude Opus 4.1
LegalBench (Vals AI)83.5%82.8%Claude Opus 4.1
CaseLaw (Vals AI)Not measured66.0%Only GPT-5.2 measured
CorpFin (Vals AI)Not measured65.9%Only GPT-5.2 measured
TaxEval (Vals AI)73.7%75.8%GPT-5.2
MortgageTax (Vals AI)61.1%67.1%GPT-5.2
MedQA (Vals AI)93.6%94.1%GPT-5.2
MedCode (Vals AI)47.2%49.8%GPT-5.2
MMLU Pro (Artificial Analysis run)Not measured87.4%Only GPT-5.2 measured
SimpleQA VerifiedNot measured37.1%Only GPT-5.2 measured
LMArena Text: science14221425GPT-5.2
LMArena Text: medicine and healthcare14161425GPT-5.2
LMArena Text: legal and government14211427GPT-5.2
LMArena Text: business and finance14061414GPT-5.2
FACTS Benchmark Suite40.4%48.5%GPT-5.2
Neither model has a result on the other 3 boards here
Web designLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index34
Web design benchmarks for Claude Opus 4.1 and GPT-5.2
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.1GPT-5.2Leader
Design Arena: websites11761195GPT-5.2
Design Arena: UI components11621190GPT-5.2
Design Arena: game dev11711195GPT-5.2
Design Arena: data viz11661202GPT-5.2
Design Arena: 3D11521079Claude Opus 4.1
Design Arena: all code categories11701170Tie
Design Arena: SVG11521139Claude Opus 4.1
Design Arena: ASCII art11671152Claude Opus 4.1
Neither model has a result on the other 1 board here
GeneralLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index129
General benchmarks for Claude Opus 4.1 and GPT-5.2
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.1GPT-5.2Leader
SAGE (Vals AI)31.4%49.3%GPT-5.2
MedScribe (Vals AI)73.9%84.4%GPT-5.2
IFBenchNot measured75.4%Only GPT-5.2 measured
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR)Not measured82.7%Only GPT-5.2 measured
DTBench80.0%90.9%GPT-5.2
LMCA37.1%43.9%GPT-5.2
Creative writing (Lech Mazur)84.7%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
CL-benchNot measured18.2%Only GPT-5.2 measured
Furniture assemblyNot measured38.3%Only GPT-5.2 measured
LMArena Text14191416Claude Opus 4.1
LMArena Text: instruction following14351409Claude Opus 4.1
LMArena Text: creative writing14121376Claude Opus 4.1
LMArena VisionNot measured1246Only GPT-5.2 measured
LMArena Text: English14331422Claude Opus 4.1
LMArena Text: non-English14051405Claude Opus 4.1
LMArena Text: Chinese14271447GPT-5.2
LMArena Text: German14131444GPT-5.2
LMArena Text: Japanese13771420GPT-5.2
LMArena Text: Korean13811374Claude Opus 4.1
LMArena Text: French14331454GPT-5.2
LMArena Text: Spanish14481413Claude Opus 4.1
LMArena Text: Russian14221415Claude Opus 4.1
LMArena Text: Polish14131426GPT-5.2
LMArena Text: multi-turn14441419Claude Opus 4.1
LMArena Text: longer queries14551413Claude Opus 4.1
LMArena Text: writing and language14181392Claude Opus 4.1
LMArena Text: entertainment and media13981378Claude Opus 4.1
LMArena Vision: EnglishNot measured1243Only GPT-5.2 measured
LMArena Vision: ChineseNot measured1305Only GPT-5.2 measured
LMArena Vision: reading textNot measured1257Only GPT-5.2 measured
LMArena Vision: humorNot measured1227Only GPT-5.2 measured
LMArena Vision: captioningNot measured1267Only GPT-5.2 measured
LMArena Vision: recognizing thingsNot measured1232Only GPT-5.2 measured
LMArena Vision: creative writingNot measured1225Only GPT-5.2 measured
LMArena DocumentNot measured1405Only GPT-5.2 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 11 boards here
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
Image generation benchmarks for Claude Opus 4.1 and GPT-5.2
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.1GPT-5.2Leader
Neither model has a result on 5 boards here

What each workload costs

Three fixed token mixes at each model's listed price, so per-token rates become a bill.

Chat turn

1K input + 500 output tokens

Claude Opus 4.1$0.052Fits in one request
GPT-5.2$0.0088Fits in one request

GPT-5.2 costs less

Repository review

50K input + 3K output tokens

Claude Opus 4.1$0.975Fits in one request
GPT-5.2$0.130Fits in one request

GPT-5.2 costs less

Agent loop

200K input + 10K output tokens

Claude Opus 4.1$3.75Exceeds the context window
GPT-5.2$0.490Fits in one request

GPT-5.2 costs less

Listed OpenRouter rates, without cache or batch discounts. A workload that does not fit a model's context window would need splitting.

Specification differences

The leading value in a row is marked; a row with a missing value names no leader. Our two rows are marked in red.

Specifications of Claude Opus 4.1 and GPT-5.2
SpecificationAnthropic Claude Opus 4.1OpenAI GPT-5.2
MakerAnthropicOpenAI
WeightsNo public weights listedNo public weights listed
ReleasedAugust 5, 2025December 10, 2025
Context window200K400K
Input $/Mtok$15.00$1.75
Output $/Mtok$75.00$14.00
Coding indexNot benchmarked55.9
Independent measurements behind it13
Cost per solved taskNot computable$1.91
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is Claude Opus 4.1 better than GPT-5.2 for coding?

Only GPT-5.2 has a coding score, 55.9 on the Vibe Coding Index; Claude Opus 4.1 has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Pick Claude Opus 4.1 for work measured by LMArena Text: coding or LMArena Text: software and IT, where it leads.

Which is cheaper, Claude Opus 4.1 or GPT-5.2?

Claude Opus 4.1 costs $15.00 per million input tokens and $75.00 per million output tokens; GPT-5.2 costs $1.75 and $14.00. Cost per solved task is known for GPT-5.2 only.

Which has the bigger context window, Claude Opus 4.1 or GPT-5.2?

GPT-5.2, with 400K tokens against 200K.

How many benchmarks is the Claude Opus 4.1 vs GPT-5.2 comparison based on?

69 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 22, 2026. Claude Opus 4.1's coding index rests on 1 independent benchmark and GPT-5.2's on 3. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.

Compare next