Command R7B (12-2024) vs GPT-5.2
Updated October 21, 2026. No benchmark has tested both models yet. Coding is ranked on the Vibe Coding Index; every other board is shown as published.
- Coding
- No data
- Overall
- No data
- Output $/M
- $0.15
- Coding
- 55.9
- Overall
- 30.4
- Output $/M
- $14.00
Decision reading
Only GPT-5.2 has a coding score, 55.9 on the Vibe Coding Index; Command R7B (12-2024) has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding.
Command R7B (12-2024) has the edge where output tokens cost 93.3x less.
No benchmark has tested both yet. Command R7B (12-2024) has none yet; GPT-5.2 on SWE-bench Verified, SWE-bench Multilingual and LMArena WebDev. Compare them on price and context instead.
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.
Coding
Vibe Coding Index, six public coding benchmarks
No call
Only GPT-5.2 has a coding score, so no call is made.
One side not measured
Intelligence
AA Intelligence Index
No call
Only GPT-5.2 has a AA Intelligence Index result, 30.4.
Directional only
Reasoning
GPQA Diamond
No call
Only GPT-5.2 has a GPQA Diamond result, 91.7%.
Directional only
Math
AIME
No call
Only GPT-5.2 has a AIME result, 96.9%.
Directional only
Knowledge
MMLU Pro
No call
Only GPT-5.2 has a MMLU Pro result, 86.2%.
Directional only
Web design
Design Arena: websites
No call
Only GPT-5.2 has a Design Arena: websites result, 1195.
Directional only
Long documents
Listed context window
GPT-5.2
GPT-5.2 takes 400K tokens against 128K.
Listed by OpenRouter
Everyday cost
1K input + 500 output tokens
Command R7B (12-2024)
Command R7B (12-2024) $0.0001, GPT-5.2 $0.0088 per turn.
List prices
Cost per solved task
One SWE-bench Verified task, solved
No call
Only GPT-5.2 has the number, $1.91.
Directional only
At a glance
- Coding index
- Command R7B (12-2024) not benchmarked, GPT-5.2 55.9 from 3 benchmarks.
- Widest category
- None yet: no category has been tested on both models.
- Widest single gap
- None yet: no benchmark has tested both models.
- Output price
- Command R7B (12-2024) $0.15 against GPT-5.2 $14.00 per million output tokens, 93.3x apart.
- Context window
- Command R7B (12-2024) takes 128K tokens, GPT-5.2 400K.
Benchmark by benchmark
Every board either model has a result on, a category to a fold; bars are each result on a 0 to 100 scale. Only one model is measured on each, so no row names a leader.
CodingDirectional onlySix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index15 boards measured
| Benchmark | Command R7B (12-2024) | GPT-5.2 | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench Verified | Not measured | 72.8% | Only GPT-5.2 measured |
| SWE-bench Multilingual | Not measured | 66.7% | Only GPT-5.2 measured |
| LMArena WebDev | Not measured | 1417 | Only GPT-5.2 measured |
| LiveCodeBench (Vals AI) | Not measured | 85.4% | Only GPT-5.2 measured |
| SWE-bench Verified (Vals AI) | Not measured | 75.8% | Only GPT-5.2 measured |
| Vibe Code Bench (Vals AI) | Not measured | 53.5% | Only GPT-5.2 measured |
| LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run) | Not measured | 89.4% | Only GPT-5.2 measured |
| Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run) | Not measured | 47.0% | Only GPT-5.2 measured |
| Terminal-Bench | Not measured | 64.9% | Only GPT-5.2 measured |
| GSO-Bench | Not measured | 27.5% | Only GPT-5.2 measured |
| WeirdML | Not measured | 72.2% | Only GPT-5.2 measured |
| ALE-Bench | Not measured | 1293.5 | Only GPT-5.2 measured |
| LMArena Text: coding | Not measured | 1442 | Only GPT-5.2 measured |
| LMArena Text: software and IT | Not measured | 1434 | Only GPT-5.2 measured |
| LMArena WebDev: HTML | Not measured | 1427 | Only GPT-5.2 measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 23 boards here | |||
IntelligenceDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index2 boards measured
| Benchmark | Command R7B (12-2024) | GPT-5.2 | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Intelligence Index | Not measured | 30.4 | Only GPT-5.2 measured |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | Not measured | 153.7 | Only GPT-5.2 measured |
Agentic workDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index11 boards measured
| Benchmark | Command R7B (12-2024) | GPT-5.2 | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Design Arena: agents building web apps | Not measured | 1086 | Only GPT-5.2 measured |
| Design Arena: agents building full-stack apps | Not measured | 1043 | Only GPT-5.2 measured |
| Design Arena: agents building mobile apps | Not measured | 1093 | Only GPT-5.2 measured |
| Design Arena: agents building Android apps | Not measured | 1066 | Only GPT-5.2 measured |
| Design Arena: agents building Godot games | Not measured | 1142 | Only GPT-5.2 measured |
| τ²-Bench Telecom | Not measured | 84.8% | Only GPT-5.2 measured |
| METR time horizons | Not measured | 75.3% | Only GPT-5.2 measured |
| Remote Labor Index | Not measured | 2.5% | Only GPT-5.2 measured |
| GDPval | Not measured | 49.7% | Only GPT-5.2 measured |
| DeepResearch Bench | Not measured | 41.1% | Only GPT-5.2 measured |
| Vending-Bench 2 | Not measured | $3,591 | Only GPT-5.2 measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 28 boards here | |||
ReasoningDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index17 boards measured
| Benchmark | Command R7B (12-2024) | GPT-5.2 | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | Not measured | 91.7% | Only GPT-5.2 measured |
| MMMU Pro (Vals AI) | Not measured | 86.7% | Only GPT-5.2 measured |
| GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run) | Not measured | 90.3% | Only GPT-5.2 measured |
| Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run) | Not measured | 37.7% | Only GPT-5.2 measured |
| GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run) | Not measured | 91.4% | Only GPT-5.2 measured |
| ARC-AGI | Not measured | 86.2% | Only GPT-5.2 measured |
| ARC-AGI-2 | Not measured | 52.9% | Only GPT-5.2 measured |
| SimpleBench | Not measured | 45.8% | Only GPT-5.2 measured |
| Chess puzzles | Not measured | 48.0% | Only GPT-5.2 measured |
| Mystery game puzzles | Not measured | 23.0% | Only GPT-5.2 measured |
| EBR-bench | Not measured | 23.0% | Only GPT-5.2 measured |
| VPCT | Not measured | 84.0% | Only GPT-5.2 measured |
| LMArena Text: hard prompts | Not measured | 1428 | Only GPT-5.2 measured |
| LMArena Text: expert | Not measured | 1445 | Only GPT-5.2 measured |
| LMArena Text: hard prompts in English | Not measured | 1431 | Only GPT-5.2 measured |
| LMArena Vision: diagrams | Not measured | 1265 | Only GPT-5.2 measured |
| LMArena Vision: homework | Not measured | 1276 | Only GPT-5.2 measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 4 boards here | |||
MathDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index10 boards measured
| Benchmark | Command R7B (12-2024) | GPT-5.2 | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AIME | Not measured | 96.9% | Only GPT-5.2 measured |
| MGSM (Vals AI) | Not measured | 94.0% | Only GPT-5.2 measured |
| AA Math Index | Not measured | 99.0 | Only GPT-5.2 measured |
| AIME 2025 (Artificial Analysis run) | Not measured | 99.0% | Only GPT-5.2 measured |
| OTIS Mock AIME | Not measured | 96.1% | Only GPT-5.2 measured |
| FrontierMath, tiers 1 to 3 | Not measured | 67.4% | Only GPT-5.2 measured |
| FrontierMath, tier 4 | Not measured | 31.7% | Only GPT-5.2 measured |
| ProofBench | Not measured | 15.0% | Only GPT-5.2 measured |
| LMArena Text: math | Not measured | 1440 | Only GPT-5.2 measured |
| LMArena Text: mathematical work | Not measured | 1442 | Only GPT-5.2 measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 3 boards here | |||
KnowledgeDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index14 boards measured
| Benchmark | Command R7B (12-2024) | GPT-5.2 | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMLU Pro | Not measured | 86.2% | Only GPT-5.2 measured |
| LegalBench (Vals AI) | Not measured | 82.8% | Only GPT-5.2 measured |
| CaseLaw (Vals AI) | Not measured | 66.0% | Only GPT-5.2 measured |
| CorpFin (Vals AI) | Not measured | 65.9% | Only GPT-5.2 measured |
| TaxEval (Vals AI) | Not measured | 75.8% | Only GPT-5.2 measured |
| MortgageTax (Vals AI) | Not measured | 67.1% | Only GPT-5.2 measured |
| MedQA (Vals AI) | Not measured | 94.1% | Only GPT-5.2 measured |
| MedCode (Vals AI) | Not measured | 49.8% | Only GPT-5.2 measured |
| MMLU Pro (Artificial Analysis run) | Not measured | 87.4% | Only GPT-5.2 measured |
| SimpleQA Verified | Not measured | 37.1% | Only GPT-5.2 measured |
| LMArena Text: science | Not measured | 1425 | Only GPT-5.2 measured |
| LMArena Text: medicine and healthcare | Not measured | 1425 | Only GPT-5.2 measured |
| LMArena Text: legal and government | Not measured | 1427 | Only GPT-5.2 measured |
| LMArena Text: business and finance | Not measured | 1414 | Only GPT-5.2 measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 3 boards here | |||
Web designDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index8 boards measured
| Benchmark | Command R7B (12-2024) | GPT-5.2 | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Design Arena: websites | Not measured | 1195 | Only GPT-5.2 measured |
| Design Arena: UI components | Not measured | 1190 | Only GPT-5.2 measured |
| Design Arena: game dev | Not measured | 1195 | Only GPT-5.2 measured |
| Design Arena: data viz | Not measured | 1202 | Only GPT-5.2 measured |
| Design Arena: 3D | Not measured | 1079 | Only GPT-5.2 measured |
| Design Arena: all code categories | Not measured | 1170 | Only GPT-5.2 measured |
| Design Arena: SVG | Not measured | 1139 | Only GPT-5.2 measured |
| Design Arena: ASCII art | Not measured | 1152 | Only GPT-5.2 measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 1 board here | |||
GeneralDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index34 boards measured
| Benchmark | Command R7B (12-2024) | GPT-5.2 | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| SAGE (Vals AI) | Not measured | 49.3% | Only GPT-5.2 measured |
| MedScribe (Vals AI) | Not measured | 84.4% | Only GPT-5.2 measured |
| IFBench | Not measured | 75.4% | Only GPT-5.2 measured |
| Long context reasoning (AA-LCR) | Not measured | 82.7% | Only GPT-5.2 measured |
| DTBench | Not measured | 90.9% | Only GPT-5.2 measured |
| LMCA | Not measured | 43.9% | Only GPT-5.2 measured |
| CL-bench | Not measured | 18.2% | Only GPT-5.2 measured |
| Furniture assembly | Not measured | 38.3% | Only GPT-5.2 measured |
| LMArena Text | Not measured | 1416 | Only GPT-5.2 measured |
| LMArena Text: instruction following | Not measured | 1409 | Only GPT-5.2 measured |
| LMArena Text: creative writing | Not measured | 1376 | Only GPT-5.2 measured |
| LMArena Vision | Not measured | 1246 | Only GPT-5.2 measured |
| LMArena Text: English | Not measured | 1422 | Only GPT-5.2 measured |
| LMArena Text: non-English | Not measured | 1405 | Only GPT-5.2 measured |
| LMArena Text: Chinese | Not measured | 1447 | Only GPT-5.2 measured |
| LMArena Text: German | Not measured | 1444 | Only GPT-5.2 measured |
| LMArena Text: Japanese | Not measured | 1420 | Only GPT-5.2 measured |
| LMArena Text: Korean | Not measured | 1374 | Only GPT-5.2 measured |
| LMArena Text: French | Not measured | 1454 | Only GPT-5.2 measured |
| LMArena Text: Spanish | Not measured | 1413 | Only GPT-5.2 measured |
| LMArena Text: Russian | Not measured | 1415 | Only GPT-5.2 measured |
| LMArena Text: Polish | Not measured | 1426 | Only GPT-5.2 measured |
| LMArena Text: multi-turn | Not measured | 1419 | Only GPT-5.2 measured |
| LMArena Text: longer queries | Not measured | 1413 | Only GPT-5.2 measured |
| LMArena Text: writing and language | Not measured | 1392 | Only GPT-5.2 measured |
| LMArena Text: entertainment and media | Not measured | 1378 | Only GPT-5.2 measured |
| LMArena Vision: English | Not measured | 1243 | Only GPT-5.2 measured |
| LMArena Vision: Chinese | Not measured | 1305 | Only GPT-5.2 measured |
| LMArena Vision: reading text | Not measured | 1257 | Only GPT-5.2 measured |
| LMArena Vision: humor | Not measured | 1227 | Only GPT-5.2 measured |
| LMArena Vision: captioning | Not measured | 1267 | Only GPT-5.2 measured |
| LMArena Vision: recognizing things | Not measured | 1232 | Only GPT-5.2 measured |
| LMArena Vision: creative writing | Not measured | 1225 | Only GPT-5.2 measured |
| LMArena Document | Not measured | 1405 | Only GPT-5.2 measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 12 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
Command R7B (12-2024) costs less
Repository review
50K input + 3K output tokens
Command R7B (12-2024) costs less
Agent loop
200K input + 10K output tokens
Command R7B (12-2024) 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.
| Specification | Cohere Command R7B (12-2024) | OpenAI GPT-5.2 |
|---|---|---|
| Maker | Cohere | OpenAI |
| Weights | No public weights listed | No public weights listed |
| Released | December 14, 2024 | December 10, 2025 |
| Context window | 128K | 400K |
| Input $/Mtok | $0.0375 | $1.75 |
| Output $/Mtok | $0.15 | $14.00 |
| Coding index | Not benchmarked | 55.9 |
| Independent measurements behind it | 0 | 3 |
| Cost per solved task | Not computable | $1.91 |
| Source | OpenRouter listing | OpenRouter listing |
Questions
Is Command R7B (12-2024) better than GPT-5.2 for coding?
Only GPT-5.2 has a coding score, 55.9 on the Vibe Coding Index; Command R7B (12-2024) has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Command R7B (12-2024) has the edge where output tokens cost 93.3x less.
Which is cheaper, Command R7B (12-2024) or GPT-5.2?
Command R7B (12-2024) costs $0.0375 per million input tokens and $0.15 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, Command R7B (12-2024) or GPT-5.2?
GPT-5.2, with 400K tokens against 128K.
Has any benchmark tested both Command R7B (12-2024) and GPT-5.2?
No benchmark has tested both yet. Command R7B (12-2024) has none yet; GPT-5.2 on SWE-bench Verified, SWE-bench Multilingual and LMArena WebDev. Compare them on price and context instead. Data as of October 21, 2026.