Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

GPT-4o (2024-11-20) vs GPT-5.2

GPT-5.2 leads GPT-4o (2024-11-20) on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index, 30.4 to 8.4, and GPT-4o (2024-11-20) costs 1.4x less per output token ($10.00 vs $14.00 per million). Updated October 22, 2026; 17 benchmarks have a result for both.

GPT-4o (2024-11-20)OpenAI
Coding
No data
Overall
No data
Output $/M
$10.00
0
GPT-5.2OpenAI
Coding
55.9
Overall
60.7
Output $/M
$14.00
17
vs boards won of 17 shared

GPT-4o (2024-11-20) or GPT-5.2: which to pick

Only GPT-5.2 has a coding score, 55.9 on the Vibe Coding Index; GPT-4o (2024-11-20) has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding.

Pick GPT-4o (2024-11-20) for output tokens 1.4x cheaper ($10.00 vs $14.00 per million).

Shared results
17
GPT-4o (2024-11-20) only
7
GPT-5.2 only
99
Like-for-like categories
5 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
GPT-4o (2024-11-20) not benchmarked, GPT-5.2 55.9 from 3 benchmarks.
Widest category
Math, 59.5 points apart on average over 3 shared benchmarks.
Widest single gap
OTIS Mock AIME: GPT-4o (2024-11-20) 6.3% against GPT-5.2 96.1%, 89.9 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
Output price
GPT-4o (2024-11-20) $10.00 against GPT-5.2 $14.00 per million output tokens, 1.4x apart.
Context window
GPT-4o (2024-11-20) takes 128K 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
CategoryGPT-4o (2024-11-20)BarsGPT-5.2Ties
Coding03
Intelligence01
Reasoning04
Math03
Knowledge06
All shared boards017
CodingLike-for-likeSix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index03
Coding benchmarks for GPT-4o (2024-11-20) and GPT-5.2
BenchmarkGPT-4o (2024-11-20)GPT-5.2Leader
Aider polyglot18.2%Not measuredOnly GPT-4o (2024-11-20) measured
SWE-bench VerifiedNot measured72.8%Only GPT-5.2 measured
SWE-bench MultilingualNot measured66.7%Only GPT-5.2 measured
LMArena WebDevNot measured1417Only GPT-5.2 measured
LiveCodeBench (Vals AI)43.4%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-BenchNot measured64.9%Only GPT-5.2 measured
GSO-Bench0.0%27.5%GPT-5.2
WeirdML25.1%72.2%GPT-5.2
Cybench12.5%Not measuredOnly GPT-4o (2024-11-20) measured
ALE-BenchNot measured1293.5Only GPT-5.2 measured
LMArena Text: codingNot measured1442Only GPT-5.2 measured
LMArena Text: software and ITNot measured1434Only GPT-5.2 measured
LMArena WebDev: HTMLNot measured1427Only GPT-5.2 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 26 boards here
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
Intelligence benchmarks for GPT-4o (2024-11-20) and GPT-5.2
BenchmarkGPT-4o (2024-11-20)GPT-5.2Leader
AA Intelligence Index8.430.4GPT-5.2
Epoch Capabilities IndexNot measured153.7Only GPT-5.2 measured
Agentic workDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index14 boards, none shared
Agentic work benchmarks for GPT-4o (2024-11-20) and GPT-5.2
BenchmarkGPT-4o (2024-11-20)GPT-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 horizonsNot measured75.3%Only GPT-5.2 measured
Remote Labor IndexNot measured2.5%Only GPT-5.2 measured
GDPvalNot measured49.7%Only GPT-5.2 measured
DeepResearch BenchNot measured41.1%Only GPT-5.2 measured
TheAgentCompany8.6%Not measuredOnly GPT-4o (2024-11-20) measured
Vending-Bench 2Not measured$3,591Only GPT-5.2 measured
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard (BFCL)Not measured55.9%Only GPT-5.2 measured
MCP AtlasNot measured67.6%Only GPT-5.2 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 28 boards here
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index04
Reasoning benchmarks for GPT-4o (2024-11-20) and GPT-5.2
BenchmarkGPT-4o (2024-11-20)GPT-5.2Leader
GPQA Diamond53.8%91.7%GPT-5.2
MMMU Pro (Vals AI)62.2%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)47.9%91.4%GPT-5.2
ARC-AGINot measured86.2%Only GPT-5.2 measured
ARC-AGI-2Not measured52.9%Only GPT-5.2 measured
SimpleBenchNot measured45.8%Only GPT-5.2 measured
Chess puzzlesNot measured48.0%Only GPT-5.2 measured
Mystery game puzzlesNot measured23.0%Only GPT-5.2 measured
EBR-benchNot measured23.0%Only GPT-5.2 measured
VPCT40.0%84.0%GPT-5.2
LMArena Text: hard promptsNot measured1428Only GPT-5.2 measured
LMArena Text: expertNot measured1445Only GPT-5.2 measured
LMArena Text: hard prompts in EnglishNot measured1431Only GPT-5.2 measured
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 5 boards here
MathLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index03
Math benchmarks for GPT-4o (2024-11-20) and GPT-5.2
BenchmarkGPT-4o (2024-11-20)GPT-5.2Leader
AIME11.9%96.9%GPT-5.2
MATH 500 (Vals AI)74.0%Not measuredOnly GPT-4o (2024-11-20) measured
MGSM (Vals AI)90.4%94.0%GPT-5.2
AA Math IndexNot measured99.0Only GPT-5.2 measured
AIME 2025 (Artificial Analysis run)Not measured99.0%Only GPT-5.2 measured
OTIS Mock AIME6.3%96.1%GPT-5.2
FrontierMath, tiers 1 to 3Not measured67.4%Only GPT-5.2 measured
FrontierMath, tier 4Not measured31.7%Only GPT-5.2 measured
ProofBenchNot measured15.0%Only GPT-5.2 measured
MATH level 549.8%Not measuredOnly GPT-4o (2024-11-20) measured
LMArena Text: mathNot measured1440Only GPT-5.2 measured
LMArena Text: mathematical workNot measured1442Only GPT-5.2 measured
MathArenaNot measured33.7%Only GPT-5.2 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 1 board here
KnowledgeLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index06
Knowledge benchmarks for GPT-4o (2024-11-20) and GPT-5.2
BenchmarkGPT-4o (2024-11-20)GPT-5.2Leader
MMLU Pro72.6%86.2%GPT-5.2
LegalBench (Vals AI)82.2%82.8%GPT-5.2
CaseLaw (Vals AI)59.7%66.0%GPT-5.2
CorpFin (Vals AI)45.9%65.9%GPT-5.2
TaxEval (Vals AI)74.5%75.8%GPT-5.2
MortgageTax (Vals AI)57.4%67.1%GPT-5.2
MedQA (Vals AI)Not measured94.1%Only GPT-5.2 measured
MedCode (Vals AI)Not measured49.8%Only GPT-5.2 measured
MMLU Pro (Artificial Analysis run)Not measured87.4%Only GPT-5.2 measured
SimpleQA VerifiedNot measured37.1%Only GPT-5.2 measured
GeoBench71.0%Not measuredOnly GPT-4o (2024-11-20) measured
LMArena Text: scienceNot measured1425Only GPT-5.2 measured
LMArena Text: medicine and healthcareNot measured1425Only GPT-5.2 measured
LMArena Text: legal and governmentNot measured1427Only GPT-5.2 measured
LMArena Text: business and financeNot measured1414Only GPT-5.2 measured
FACTS Benchmark SuiteNot measured48.5%Only GPT-5.2 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 4 boards here
Web designDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index8 boards, none shared
Web design benchmarks for GPT-4o (2024-11-20) and GPT-5.2
BenchmarkGPT-4o (2024-11-20)GPT-5.2Leader
Design Arena: websitesNot measured1195Only GPT-5.2 measured
Design Arena: UI componentsNot measured1188Only GPT-5.2 measured
Design Arena: game devNot measured1195Only GPT-5.2 measured
Design Arena: data vizNot measured1202Only GPT-5.2 measured
Design Arena: 3DNot measured1079Only GPT-5.2 measured
Design Arena: all code categoriesNot measured1170Only GPT-5.2 measured
Design Arena: SVGNot measured1139Only GPT-5.2 measured
Design Arena: ASCII artNot measured1152Only 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
General benchmarks for GPT-4o (2024-11-20) and GPT-5.2
BenchmarkGPT-4o (2024-11-20)GPT-5.2Leader
SAGE (Vals AI)Not measured49.3%Only GPT-5.2 measured
MedScribe (Vals AI)Not measured84.4%Only GPT-5.2 measured
IFBenchNot measured75.4%Only GPT-5.2 measured
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR)Not measured82.7%Only GPT-5.2 measured
DTBenchNot measured90.9%Only GPT-5.2 measured
LMCANot measured43.9%Only GPT-5.2 measured
Creative writing (Lech Mazur)81.8%Not measuredOnly GPT-4o (2024-11-20) measured
CL-benchNot measured18.2%Only GPT-5.2 measured
Furniture assemblyNot measured38.3%Only GPT-5.2 measured
LMArena TextNot measured1416Only GPT-5.2 measured
LMArena Text: instruction followingNot measured1409Only GPT-5.2 measured
LMArena Text: creative writingNot measured1376Only GPT-5.2 measured
LMArena VisionNot measured1246Only GPT-5.2 measured
LMArena Text: EnglishNot measured1422Only GPT-5.2 measured
LMArena Text: non-EnglishNot measured1405Only GPT-5.2 measured
LMArena Text: ChineseNot measured1447Only GPT-5.2 measured
LMArena Text: GermanNot measured1444Only GPT-5.2 measured
LMArena Text: JapaneseNot measured1420Only GPT-5.2 measured
LMArena Text: KoreanNot measured1374Only GPT-5.2 measured
LMArena Text: FrenchNot measured1454Only GPT-5.2 measured
LMArena Text: SpanishNot measured1413Only GPT-5.2 measured
LMArena Text: RussianNot measured1415Only GPT-5.2 measured
LMArena Text: PolishNot measured1426Only GPT-5.2 measured
LMArena Text: multi-turnNot measured1419Only GPT-5.2 measured
LMArena Text: longer queriesNot measured1413Only GPT-5.2 measured
LMArena Text: writing and languageNot measured1392Only GPT-5.2 measured
LMArena Text: entertainment and mediaNot measured1378Only GPT-5.2 measured
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 13 boards here
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
Image generation benchmarks for GPT-4o (2024-11-20) and GPT-5.2
BenchmarkGPT-4o (2024-11-20)GPT-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

GPT-4o (2024-11-20)$0.0075Fits in one request
GPT-5.2$0.0088Fits in one request

GPT-4o (2024-11-20) costs less

Repository review

50K input + 3K output tokens

GPT-4o (2024-11-20)$0.155Fits in one request
GPT-5.2$0.130Fits in one request

GPT-5.2 costs less

Agent loop

200K input + 10K output tokens

GPT-4o (2024-11-20)$0.600Exceeds 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 GPT-4o (2024-11-20) and GPT-5.2
SpecificationOpenAI GPT-4o (2024-11-20)OpenAI GPT-5.2
MakerOpenAIOpenAI
WeightsNo public weights listedNo public weights listed
ReleasedNovember 20, 2024December 10, 2025
Context window128K400K
Input $/Mtok$2.50$1.75
Output $/Mtok$10.00$14.00
Coding indexNot benchmarked55.9
Independent measurements behind it03
Cost per solved taskNot computable$1.91
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is GPT-4o (2024-11-20) better than GPT-5.2 for coding?

Only GPT-5.2 has a coding score, 55.9 on the Vibe Coding Index; GPT-4o (2024-11-20) has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Pick GPT-4o (2024-11-20) for output tokens 1.4x cheaper ($10.00 vs $14.00 per million).

Which is cheaper, GPT-4o (2024-11-20) or GPT-5.2?

GPT-4o (2024-11-20) costs $2.50 per million input tokens and $10.00 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, GPT-4o (2024-11-20) or GPT-5.2?

GPT-5.2, with 400K tokens against 128K.

How many benchmarks is the GPT-4o (2024-11-20) vs GPT-5.2 comparison based on?

17 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 22, 2026. GPT-4o (2024-11-20)'s coding index rests on 0 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.

Compare next