GPT-5.2 Chat vs Qwen3.7 Flash
Qwen3.7 Flash costs 107.7x less per output token than GPT-5.2 Chat ($0.13 vs $14.00 per million). Updated October 21, 2026; no benchmark has tested both models yet.
- Coding
- No data
- Overall
- No data
- Output $/M
- $14.00
- Coding
- No data
- Overall
- No data
- Output $/M
- $0.13
GPT-5.2 Chat or Qwen3.7 Flash: which to pick
Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding.
Compare them on price, context and the boards below.
No benchmark has tested both yet. GPT-5.2 Chat has none yet; Qwen3.7 Flash on ALE-Bench, Epoch Capabilities Index and GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run). 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
Neither has a coding score yet.
One side not measured
Long documents
Listed context window
Qwen3.7 Flash
Qwen3.7 Flash takes 1M tokens against 128K.
Listed by OpenRouter
Everyday cost
1K input + 500 output tokens
Qwen3.7 Flash
GPT-5.2 Chat $0.0088, Qwen3.7 Flash $0.0001 per turn.
List prices
At a glance
- Coding index
- GPT-5.2 Chat not benchmarked, Qwen3.7 Flash not benchmarked.
- 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
- GPT-5.2 Chat $14.00 against Qwen3.7 Flash $0.13 per million output tokens, 107.7x apart.
- Context window
- GPT-5.2 Chat takes 128K tokens, Qwen3.7 Flash 1M.
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 Index1 board measured
| Benchmark | GPT-5.2 Chat | Qwen3.7 Flash | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| ALE-Bench | Not measured | 420.1 | Only Qwen3.7 Flash measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 38 boards here | |||
IntelligenceDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index1 board measured
| Benchmark | GPT-5.2 Chat | Qwen3.7 Flash | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Epoch Capabilities Index | Not measured | 144.1 | Only Qwen3.7 Flash measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 1 board here | |||
ReasoningDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index2 boards measured
| Benchmark | GPT-5.2 Chat | Qwen3.7 Flash | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run) | Not measured | 82.3% | Only Qwen3.7 Flash measured |
| Mystery game puzzles | Not measured | 15.0% | Only Qwen3.7 Flash measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 20 boards here | |||
MathDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index2 boards measured
| Benchmark | GPT-5.2 Chat | Qwen3.7 Flash | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME | Not measured | 86.7% | Only Qwen3.7 Flash measured |
| FrontierMath, tiers 1 to 3 | Not measured | 19.3% | Only Qwen3.7 Flash measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 11 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
Qwen3.7 Flash costs less
Repository review
50K input + 3K output tokens
Qwen3.7 Flash costs less
Agent loop
200K input + 10K output tokens
Qwen3.7 Flash 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-5.2 Chat | Qwen3.7 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Maker | OpenAI | Qwen |
| Weights | No public weights listed | No public weights listed |
| Released | December 10, 2025 | July 27, 2026 |
| Context window | 128K | 1M |
| Input $/Mtok | $1.75 | $0.03 |
| Output $/Mtok | $14.00 | $0.13 |
| Coding index | Not benchmarked | Not benchmarked |
| Independent measurements behind it | 0 | 0 |
| Cost per solved task | Not computable | Not computable |
| Source | OpenRouter listing | OpenRouter listing |
Questions
Is GPT-5.2 Chat better than Qwen3.7 Flash for coding?
Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Compare them on price, context and the boards below.
Which is cheaper, GPT-5.2 Chat or Qwen3.7 Flash?
GPT-5.2 Chat costs $1.75 per million input tokens and $14.00 per million output tokens; Qwen3.7 Flash costs $0.03 and $0.13. Cost per solved task is known for neither of them.
Which has the bigger context window, GPT-5.2 Chat or Qwen3.7 Flash?
Qwen3.7 Flash, with 1M tokens against 128K.
Has any benchmark tested both GPT-5.2 Chat and Qwen3.7 Flash?
No benchmark has tested both yet. GPT-5.2 Chat has none yet; Qwen3.7 Flash on ALE-Bench, Epoch Capabilities Index and GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run). Compare them on price and context instead. Data as of October 21, 2026.