Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

Gemma 3 12B vs GPT-5.2-Codex

Updated October 21, 2026. 7 benchmarks have a result for both. Coding is ranked on the Vibe Coding Index; every other board is shown as published.

Gemma 3 12BGoogle
Coding
No data
Overall
3.8
Output $/M
$0.1625
0
GPT-5.2-CodexOpenAI
Coding
45.4
Overall
28.5
Output $/M
$14.00
7
vs boards won of 7 shared

Decision reading

Only GPT-5.2-Codex has a coding score, 45.4 on the Vibe Coding Index; Gemma 3 12B has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding.

Gemma 3 12B has the edge where output tokens cost 86.2x less.

Shared results
7
Gemma 3 12B only
34
GPT-5.2-Codex only
15
Like-for-like categories
5 of 9

Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results only one model has describe coverage, not superiority.

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
Gemma 3 12B not benchmarked, GPT-5.2-Codex 45.4 from 3 benchmarks.
Widest category
Agentic work, 81.3 points apart on average over 1 shared benchmark.
Widest single gap
τ²-Bench Telecom: Gemma 3 12B 10.8% against GPT-5.2-Codex 92.1%, 81.3 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
Output price
Gemma 3 12B $0.1625 against GPT-5.2-Codex $14.00 per million output tokens, 86.2x apart.
Context window
Gemma 3 12B takes 131K tokens, GPT-5.2-Codex 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
CategoryGemma 3 12BBarsGPT-5.2-CodexTies
Coding01
Intelligence01
Agentic work01
Reasoning02
General02
All shared boards07
CodingLike-for-likeSix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index01
Coding benchmarks for Gemma 3 12B and GPT-5.2-Codex
BenchmarkGemma 3 12BGPT-5.2-CodexLeader
SWE-bench VerifiedNot measured72.8%Only GPT-5.2-Codex measured
SWE-bench MultilingualNot measured66.3%Only GPT-5.2-Codex measured
LMArena WebDevNot measured1339Only GPT-5.2-Codex measured
AA Coding Index5.8Not measuredOnly Gemma 3 12B measured
LiveCodeBench (Vals AI)Not measured88.0%Only GPT-5.2-Codex measured
SWE-bench Verified (Vals AI)Not measured72.4%Only GPT-5.2-Codex measured
Vibe Code Bench (Vals AI)Not measured37.9%Only GPT-5.2-Codex measured
LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run)13.7%Not measuredOnly Gemma 3 12B measured
SciCode16.4%Not measuredOnly Gemma 3 12B measured
Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run)0.8%37.1%GPT-5.2-Codex
Terminal-BenchNot measured66.5%Only GPT-5.2-Codex measured
ALE-BenchNot measured1299.9Only GPT-5.2-Codex measured
LMArena Text: coding1281Not measuredOnly Gemma 3 12B measured
LMArena Text: software and IT1313Not measuredOnly Gemma 3 12B measured
LMArena WebDev: ReactNot measured1329Only GPT-5.2-Codex measured
LMArena WebDev: HTMLNot measured1348Only GPT-5.2-Codex measured
Neither model has a result on the other 22 boards here
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
Intelligence benchmarks for Gemma 3 12B and GPT-5.2-Codex
BenchmarkGemma 3 12BGPT-5.2-CodexLeader
AA Intelligence Index3.828.5GPT-5.2-Codex
Epoch Capabilities Index123.5Not measuredOnly Gemma 3 12B measured
Agentic workLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
Agentic work benchmarks for Gemma 3 12B and GPT-5.2-Codex
BenchmarkGemma 3 12BGPT-5.2-CodexLeader
AA Agentic Index0.1Not measuredOnly Gemma 3 12B measured
Design Arena: agents building web appsNot measured1051Only GPT-5.2-Codex measured
Design Arena: agents building full-stack appsNot measured993Only GPT-5.2-Codex measured
Design Arena: agents building mobile appsNot measured1089Only GPT-5.2-Codex measured
Design Arena: agents building Android appsNot measured1176Only GPT-5.2-Codex measured
Design Arena: agents building Godot gamesNot measured1142Only GPT-5.2-Codex measured
τ²-Bench Telecom10.8%92.1%GPT-5.2-Codex
Neither model has a result on the other 32 boards here
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index02
Reasoning benchmarks for Gemma 3 12B and GPT-5.2-Codex
BenchmarkGemma 3 12BGPT-5.2-CodexLeader
GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run)34.9%89.9%GPT-5.2-Codex
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)4.2%35.7%GPT-5.2-Codex
GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run)39.5%Not measuredOnly Gemma 3 12B measured
LMArena Text: hard prompts1309Not measuredOnly Gemma 3 12B measured
LMArena Text: expert1248Not measuredOnly Gemma 3 12B measured
LMArena Text: hard prompts in English1318Not measuredOnly Gemma 3 12B measured
Neither model has a result on the other 15 boards here
MathDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index5 boards, none shared
Math benchmarks for Gemma 3 12B and GPT-5.2-Codex
BenchmarkGemma 3 12BGPT-5.2-CodexLeader
AA Math Index18.3Not measuredOnly Gemma 3 12B measured
AIME 2025 (Artificial Analysis run)18.3%Not measuredOnly Gemma 3 12B measured
OTIS Mock AIME16.7%Not measuredOnly Gemma 3 12B measured
LMArena Text: math1307Not measuredOnly Gemma 3 12B measured
LMArena Text: mathematical work1336Not measuredOnly Gemma 3 12B measured
Neither model has a result on the other 8 boards here
KnowledgeDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index5 boards, none shared
Knowledge benchmarks for Gemma 3 12B and GPT-5.2-Codex
BenchmarkGemma 3 12BGPT-5.2-CodexLeader
MMLU Pro (Artificial Analysis run)59.5%Not measuredOnly Gemma 3 12B measured
LMArena Text: science1366Not measuredOnly Gemma 3 12B measured
LMArena Text: medicine and healthcare1334Not measuredOnly Gemma 3 12B measured
LMArena Text: legal and government1381Not measuredOnly Gemma 3 12B measured
LMArena Text: business and finance1376Not measuredOnly Gemma 3 12B measured
Neither model has a result on the other 12 boards here
Web designNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
Web design benchmarks for Gemma 3 12B and GPT-5.2-Codex
BenchmarkGemma 3 12BGPT-5.2-CodexLeader
Neither model has a result on 9 boards here
GeneralLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index02
General benchmarks for Gemma 3 12B and GPT-5.2-Codex
BenchmarkGemma 3 12BGPT-5.2-CodexLeader
IFBench36.7%77.6%GPT-5.2-Codex
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR)8.3%82.3%GPT-5.2-Codex
DTBench48.8%Not measuredOnly Gemma 3 12B measured
LMCA4.5%Not measuredOnly Gemma 3 12B measured
LMArena Text1334Not measuredOnly Gemma 3 12B measured
LMArena Text: instruction following1299Not measuredOnly Gemma 3 12B measured
LMArena Text: creative writing1331Not measuredOnly Gemma 3 12B measured
LMArena Text: English1349Not measuredOnly Gemma 3 12B measured
LMArena Text: non-English1318Not measuredOnly Gemma 3 12B measured
LMArena Text: German1370Not measuredOnly Gemma 3 12B measured
LMArena Text: Russian1335Not measuredOnly Gemma 3 12B measured
LMArena Text: multi-turn1334Not measuredOnly Gemma 3 12B measured
LMArena Text: longer queries1317Not measuredOnly Gemma 3 12B measured
LMArena Text: writing and language1307Not measuredOnly Gemma 3 12B measured
LMArena Text: entertainment and media1297Not measuredOnly Gemma 3 12B measured
Neither model has a result on the other 31 boards here
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
Image generation benchmarks for Gemma 3 12B and GPT-5.2-Codex
BenchmarkGemma 3 12BGPT-5.2-CodexLeader
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

Gemma 3 12B$0.0002Fits in one request
GPT-5.2-Codex$0.0088Fits in one request

Gemma 3 12B costs less

Repository review

50K input + 3K output tokens

Gemma 3 12B$0.0042Fits in one request
GPT-5.2-Codex$0.130Fits in one request

Gemma 3 12B costs less

Agent loop

200K input + 10K output tokens

Gemma 3 12B$0.017Exceeds the context window
GPT-5.2-Codex$0.490Fits in one request

Gemma 3 12B 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 Gemma 3 12B and GPT-5.2-Codex
SpecificationGoogle Gemma 3 12BOpenAI GPT-5.2-Codex
MakerGoogleOpenAI
WeightsOpen weightsNo public weights listed
ReleasedMarch 13, 2025January 14, 2026
Context window131K400K
Input $/Mtok$0.075$1.75
Output $/Mtok$0.1625$14.00
Coding indexNot benchmarked45.4
Independent measurements behind it03
Cost per solved taskNot computable$0.43
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is Gemma 3 12B better than GPT-5.2-Codex for coding?

Only GPT-5.2-Codex has a coding score, 45.4 on the Vibe Coding Index; Gemma 3 12B has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Gemma 3 12B has the edge where output tokens cost 86.2x less.

Which is cheaper, Gemma 3 12B or GPT-5.2-Codex?

Gemma 3 12B costs $0.075 per million input tokens and $0.1625 per million output tokens; GPT-5.2-Codex costs $1.75 and $14.00. Cost per solved task is known for GPT-5.2-Codex only.

Which has the bigger context window, Gemma 3 12B or GPT-5.2-Codex?

GPT-5.2-Codex, with 400K tokens against 131K.

How many benchmarks is the Gemma 3 12B vs GPT-5.2-Codex comparison based on?

7 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 21, 2026. Gemma 3 12B's coding index rests on 0 independent benchmarks and GPT-5.2-Codex's on 3. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.

Compare next