Ember-1 vs GPT-5.2
GPT-5.2 leads Ember-1 on coding, 55.9 to 52.6 on the Vibe Coding Index, at about the same output price ($14.00 vs $15.00 per million). Updated October 21, 2026; 1 benchmarks have a result for both.
vs boards won of 1 shared
Ember-1 or GPT-5.2: which to pick
Pick GPT-5.2 for coding: it scores 55.9 on the Vibe Coding Index against 52.6 for Ember-1.
Pick Ember-1 for a larger context window (1.05M against 400K tokens) and work measured by Vibe Code Bench (Vals AI), where it leads.
Model AEmber-1Fireworks52.6/1002 independent benchmarksNo cost per solved taskModel BGPT-5.2OpenAI55.9/1003 independent benchmarks$1.91 per solved task
- Shared results
- 1
- Ember-1 only
- 13
- GPT-5.2 only
- 113
- Like-for-like categories
- 1 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.
Coding
Vibe Coding Index, six public coding benchmarks
GPT-5.2
GPT-5.2 scores 55.9 against 52.6.
2 and 3 benchmarks behind the scores
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
Ember-1
Ember-1 takes 1.05M tokens against 400K.
Listed by OpenRouter
Everyday cost
1K input + 500 output tokens
GPT-5.2
Ember-1 $0.011, 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
- Ember-1 52.6 from 2 benchmarks, GPT-5.2 55.9 from 3 benchmarks.
- Widest category
- Coding, 30.4 points apart on average over 1 shared benchmark.
- Widest single gap
- Vibe Code Bench (Vals AI): Ember-1 83.9% against GPT-5.2 53.5%, 30.4 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
- Output price
- Ember-1 $15.00 against GPT-5.2 $14.00 per million output tokens, 1.1x apart.
- Context window
- Ember-1 takes 1.05M 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.
| Category | Ember-1 | Bars | GPT-5.2 | Ties |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | 1 | 0 | ||
| All shared boards | 1 | 0 |
CodingLike-for-likeSix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index10
| Benchmark | Ember-1 | 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 |
| Terminal-Bench 4 (Vals AI) | 20.7% | Not measured | Only Ember-1 measured |
| Vibe Code Bench (Vals AI) | 83.9% | 53.5% | Ember-1 |
| Code migration (Vals AI) | 32.5% | Not measured | Only Ember-1 measured |
| IOI (Vals AI) | 46.3% | Not measured | Only Ember-1 measured |
| CyberBench (Vals AI) | 69.5% | Not measured | Only Ember-1 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 20 boards here | |||
IntelligenceDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index2 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Ember-1 | 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 index19 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Ember-1 | 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 | 1058 | Only GPT-5.2 measured |
| Design Arena: agents building Godot games | Not measured | 1142 | Only GPT-5.2 measured |
| Finance Agent (Vals AI) | 51.8% | Not measured | Only Ember-1 measured |
| Tax Agent Bench (Vals AI) | 31.1% | Not measured | Only Ember-1 measured |
| Legal Research Bench (Vals AI) | 44.7% | Not measured | Only Ember-1 measured |
| Excel Modeling Benchmark (Vals AI) | 63.4% | Not measured | Only Ember-1 measured |
| BioMysteryBench (Vals AI) | 67.0% | Not measured | Only Ember-1 measured |
| Terminal-Bench-Science (Vals AI) | 5.7% | Not measured | Only Ember-1 measured |
| Vals Science Index | 31.8% | Not measured | Only Ember-1 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 |
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard (BFCL) | Not measured | 55.9% | Only GPT-5.2 measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 22 boards here | |||
ReasoningDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index19 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Ember-1 | GPT-5.2 | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | Not measured | 91.7% | Only GPT-5.2 measured |
| MysteryMechanism (Vals AI) | 22.5% | Not measured | Only Ember-1 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 |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | Not measured | 73.3% | Only GPT-5.2 measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 3 boards here | |||
MathDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index10 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Ember-1 | 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 index15 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Ember-1 | 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 |
| FACTS Benchmark Suite | Not measured | 48.5% | 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, none shared
| Benchmark | Ember-1 | 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 index35 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Ember-1 | GPT-5.2 | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Public Benefits Bench (Vals AI) | 66.2% | Not measured | Only Ember-1 measured |
| 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 11 boards here | |||
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Ember-1 | GPT-5.2 | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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
Ember-1$0.011Fits in one request
GPT-5.2$0.0088Fits in one request
GPT-5.2 costs less
Repository review
50K input + 3K output tokens
Ember-1$0.195Fits in one request
GPT-5.2$0.130Fits in one request
GPT-5.2 costs less
Agent loop
200K input + 10K output tokens
Ember-1$0.750Fits in one request
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.
| Specification | Fireworks Ember-1 | OpenAI GPT-5.2 |
|---|---|---|
| Maker | Fireworks | OpenAI |
| Weights | No public weights listed | No public weights listed |
| Released | September 24, 2026 | December 10, 2025 |
| Context window | 1.05M | 400K |
| Input $/Mtok | $3.00 | $1.75 |
| Output $/Mtok | $15.00 | $14.00 |
| Coding index | 52.6 | 55.9 |
| Independent measurements behind it | 2 | 3 |
| Cost per solved task | Not computable | $1.91 |
| Source | OpenRouter listing | OpenRouter listing |
Questions
Is Ember-1 better than GPT-5.2 for coding?
Pick GPT-5.2 for coding: it scores 55.9 on the Vibe Coding Index against 52.6 for Ember-1. Pick Ember-1 for a larger context window (1.05M against 400K tokens) and work measured by Vibe Code Bench (Vals AI), where it leads.
Which is cheaper, Ember-1 or GPT-5.2?
Ember-1 costs $3.00 per million input tokens and $15.00 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, Ember-1 or GPT-5.2?
Ember-1, with 1.05M tokens against 400K.
How many benchmarks is the Ember-1 vs GPT-5.2 comparison based on?
1 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 21, 2026. Ember-1's coding index rests on 2 independent benchmarks and GPT-5.2's on 3. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.