GPT-4o vs GPT-5.2-Codex
GPT-4o costs 1.4x less per output token than GPT-5.2-Codex ($10.00 vs $14.00 per million). Updated October 22, 2026; 7 benchmarks have a result for both.
GPT-4o or GPT-5.2-Codex: which to pick
Only GPT-5.2-Codex has a coding score, 45.4 on the Vibe Coding Index; GPT-4o has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding.
Pick GPT-4o for output tokens 1.4x cheaper ($10.00 vs $14.00 per million).
- Shared results
- 7
- GPT-4o only
- 20
- GPT-5.2-Codex only
- 15
- Like-for-like categories
- 4 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
No call
Only GPT-5.2-Codex has a coding score, so no call is made.
One side not measured
Intelligence
AA Intelligence Index
No call
Only GPT-5.2-Codex has a AA Intelligence Index result, 28.5.
Directional only
Web design
Design Arena: websites
No call
Only GPT-4o has a Design Arena: websites result, 831.
Directional only
Long documents
Listed context window
GPT-5.2-Codex
GPT-5.2-Codex takes 400K tokens against 128K.
Listed by OpenRouter
Everyday cost
1K input + 500 output tokens
GPT-4o
GPT-4o $0.0075, GPT-5.2-Codex $0.0088 per turn.
List prices
Cost per solved task
One SWE-bench Verified task, solved
No call
Only GPT-5.2-Codex has the number, $0.43.
Directional only
At a glance
- Coding index
- GPT-4o not benchmarked, GPT-5.2-Codex 45.4 from 3 benchmarks.
- Widest category
- Agentic work, 67.0 points apart on average over 1 shared benchmark.
- Widest single gap
- τ²-Bench Telecom: GPT-4o 25.1% against GPT-5.2-Codex 92.1%, 67.0 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
- Output price
- GPT-4o $10.00 against GPT-5.2-Codex $14.00 per million output tokens, 1.4x apart.
- Context window
- GPT-4o takes 128K 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.
| Category | GPT-4o | Bars | GPT-5.2-Codex | Ties |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | 0 | 2 | ||
| Agentic work | 0 | 1 | ||
| Reasoning | 0 | 2 | ||
| General | 0 | 2 | ||
| All shared boards | 0 | 7 |
CodingLike-for-likeSix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index02
| Benchmark | GPT-4o | GPT-5.2-Codex | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench Verified | 38.8% | 72.8% | GPT-5.2-Codex |
| SWE-bench Lite | 38.0% | Not measured | Only GPT-4o measured |
| SWE-bench (full test set) | 18.8% | Not measured | Only GPT-4o measured |
| SWE-bench Multimodal | 30.4% | Not measured | Only GPT-4o measured |
| SWE-bench Multilingual | Not measured | 66.3% | Only GPT-5.2-Codex measured |
| LMArena WebDev | Not measured | 1339 | Only GPT-5.2-Codex measured |
| LiveCodeBench (Vals AI) | Not measured | 88.0% | Only GPT-5.2-Codex measured |
| SWE-bench Verified (Vals AI) | Not measured | 72.4% | Only GPT-5.2-Codex measured |
| Vibe Code Bench (Vals AI) | Not measured | 37.9% | Only GPT-5.2-Codex measured |
| LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run) | 30.9% | Not measured | Only GPT-4o measured |
| Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run) | 8.3% | 37.1% | GPT-5.2-Codex |
| Terminal-Bench | Not measured | 66.5% | Only GPT-5.2-Codex measured |
| ALE-Bench | Not measured | 1299.9 | Only GPT-5.2-Codex measured |
| LMArena WebDev: React | Not measured | 1329 | Only GPT-5.2-Codex measured |
| LMArena WebDev: HTML | Not measured | 1348 | Only GPT-5.2-Codex measured |
| SciCode | 1.5% | Not measured | Only GPT-4o measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 23 boards here | |||
IntelligenceDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index1 board, none shared
| Benchmark | GPT-4o | GPT-5.2-Codex | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Intelligence Index | Not measured | 28.5 | Only GPT-5.2-Codex measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 1 board here | |||
Agentic workLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
| Benchmark | GPT-4o | GPT-5.2-Codex | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Design Arena: agents building web apps | Not measured | 1051 | Only GPT-5.2-Codex measured |
| Design Arena: agents building full-stack apps | Not measured | 993 | Only GPT-5.2-Codex measured |
| Design Arena: agents building mobile apps | Not measured | 1090 | Only GPT-5.2-Codex measured |
| Design Arena: agents building Android apps | Not measured | 1176 | Only GPT-5.2-Codex measured |
| Design Arena: agents building Godot games | Not measured | 1142 | Only GPT-5.2-Codex measured |
| τ²-Bench Telecom | 25.1% | 92.1% | GPT-5.2-Codex |
| GDPval | 9.9% | Not measured | Only GPT-4o measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 34 boards here | |||
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index02
| Benchmark | GPT-4o | GPT-5.2-Codex | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run) | 54.3% | 89.9% | GPT-5.2-Codex |
| Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run) | 2.4% | 35.7% | GPT-5.2-Codex |
| ARC-AGI | 4.5% | Not measured | Only GPT-4o measured |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 0.0% | Not measured | Only GPT-4o measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 18 boards here | |||
MathDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index2 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | GPT-4o | GPT-5.2-Codex | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Math Index | 6.0 | Not measured | Only GPT-4o measured |
| AIME 2025 (Artificial Analysis run) | 6.0% | Not measured | Only GPT-4o measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 11 boards here | |||
KnowledgeDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index2 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | GPT-4o | GPT-5.2-Codex | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMLU Pro (Artificial Analysis run) | 74.8% | Not measured | Only GPT-4o measured |
| MMLU | 88.1% | Not measured | Only GPT-4o measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 16 boards here | |||
Web designDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index6 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | GPT-4o | GPT-5.2-Codex | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Design Arena: websites | 831 | Not measured | Only GPT-4o measured |
| Design Arena: UI components | 882 | Not measured | Only GPT-4o measured |
| Design Arena: game dev | 906 | Not measured | Only GPT-4o measured |
| Design Arena: data viz | 858 | Not measured | Only GPT-4o measured |
| Design Arena: 3D | 868 | Not measured | Only GPT-4o measured |
| Design Arena: all code categories | 860 | Not measured | Only GPT-4o measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 3 boards here | |||
GeneralLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index02
| Benchmark | GPT-4o | GPT-5.2-Codex | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| IFBench | 34.3% | 77.6% | GPT-5.2-Codex |
| Long context reasoning (AA-LCR) | 49.3% | 82.3% | GPT-5.2-Codex |
| DTBench | 64.5% | Not measured | Only GPT-4o measured |
| LMCA | 16.6% | Not measured | Only GPT-4o measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 42 boards here | |||
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | GPT-4o | GPT-5.2-Codex | 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
GPT-4o costs less
Repository review
50K input + 3K output tokens
GPT-5.2-Codex costs less
Agent loop
200K input + 10K output tokens
GPT-5.2-Codex 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 | OpenAI GPT-4o | OpenAI GPT-5.2-Codex |
|---|---|---|
| Maker | OpenAI | OpenAI |
| Weights | No public weights listed | No public weights listed |
| Released | May 13, 2024 | January 14, 2026 |
| Context window | 128K | 400K |
| Input $/Mtok | $2.50 | $1.75 |
| Output $/Mtok | $10.00 | $14.00 |
| Coding index | Not benchmarked | 45.4 |
| Independent measurements behind it | 0 | 3 |
| Cost per solved task | Not computable | $0.43 |
| Source | OpenRouter listing | OpenRouter listing |
Questions
Is GPT-4o better than GPT-5.2-Codex for coding?
Only GPT-5.2-Codex has a coding score, 45.4 on the Vibe Coding Index; GPT-4o has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Pick GPT-4o for output tokens 1.4x cheaper ($10.00 vs $14.00 per million).
Which is cheaper, GPT-4o or GPT-5.2-Codex?
GPT-4o costs $2.50 per million input tokens and $10.00 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, GPT-4o or GPT-5.2-Codex?
GPT-5.2-Codex, with 400K tokens against 128K.
How many benchmarks is the GPT-4o vs GPT-5.2-Codex comparison based on?
7 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 22, 2026. GPT-4o'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.