Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

GPT-5.2-Codex vs GPT-5.4 Pro

Updated October 21, 2026. 0 benchmarks have a result for both. Coding is ranked on the Vibe Coding Index; every other board is shown as published.

GPT-5.2-CodexOpenAI
Coding
45.4
Overall
28.5
Output $/M
$14.00
GPT-5.4 ProOpenAI
Coding
No data
Overall
No data
Output $/M
$180.00
vs $14.00 vs $180.00 per 1M output tokens. GPT-5.2-Codex is 12.9x cheaper.

Decision reading

Only GPT-5.2-Codex has a coding score, 45.4 on the Vibe Coding Index; GPT-5.4 Pro has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding.

GPT-5.4 Pro has the edge where the context window is larger, 1.05M against 400K tokens.

Shared results
0
GPT-5.2-Codex only
22
GPT-5.4 Pro only
10
Like-for-like categories
0 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
GPT-5.2-Codex 45.4 from 3 benchmarks, GPT-5.4 Pro not benchmarked.
Widest category
No category has a result for both models.
Widest single gap
No benchmark has a result for both models.
Output price
GPT-5.2-Codex $14.00 against GPT-5.4 Pro $180.00 per million output tokens, 12.9x apart.
Context window
GPT-5.2-Codex takes 400K tokens, GPT-5.4 Pro 1.05M.

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.

CodingDirectional onlySix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index12 boards, none shared
Coding benchmarks for GPT-5.2-Codex and GPT-5.4 Pro
BenchmarkGPT-5.2-CodexGPT-5.4 ProLeader
SWE-bench Verified72.8%Not measuredOnly GPT-5.2-Codex measured
SWE-bench Multilingual66.3%Not measuredOnly GPT-5.2-Codex measured
LMArena WebDev1339Not measuredOnly GPT-5.2-Codex measured
LiveCodeBench (Vals AI)88.0%Not measuredOnly GPT-5.2-Codex measured
SWE-bench Verified (Vals AI)72.4%Not measuredOnly GPT-5.2-Codex measured
Vibe Code Bench (Vals AI)37.9%Not measuredOnly GPT-5.2-Codex measured
Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run)37.1%Not measuredOnly GPT-5.2-Codex measured
Terminal-Bench66.5%Not measuredOnly GPT-5.2-Codex measured
WeirdMLNot measured57.4%Only GPT-5.4 Pro measured
ALE-Bench1299.9Not measuredOnly GPT-5.2-Codex measured
LMArena WebDev: React1329Not measuredOnly GPT-5.2-Codex measured
LMArena WebDev: HTML1348Not measuredOnly GPT-5.2-Codex measured
Neither model has a result on the other 26 boards here
IntelligenceDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index2 boards, none shared
Intelligence benchmarks for GPT-5.2-Codex and GPT-5.4 Pro
BenchmarkGPT-5.2-CodexGPT-5.4 ProLeader
AA Intelligence Index28.5Not measuredOnly GPT-5.2-Codex measured
Epoch Capabilities IndexNot measured159.6Only GPT-5.4 Pro measured
Agentic workDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index6 boards, none shared
Agentic work benchmarks for GPT-5.2-Codex and GPT-5.4 Pro
BenchmarkGPT-5.2-CodexGPT-5.4 ProLeader
Design Arena: agents building web apps1051Not measuredOnly GPT-5.2-Codex measured
Design Arena: agents building full-stack apps993Not measuredOnly GPT-5.2-Codex measured
Design Arena: agents building mobile apps1089Not measuredOnly GPT-5.2-Codex measured
Design Arena: agents building Android apps1176Not measuredOnly GPT-5.2-Codex measured
Design Arena: agents building Godot games1142Not measuredOnly GPT-5.2-Codex measured
τ²-Bench Telecom92.1%Not measuredOnly GPT-5.2-Codex measured
Neither model has a result on the other 33 boards here
ReasoningDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index7 boards, none shared
Reasoning benchmarks for GPT-5.2-Codex and GPT-5.4 Pro
BenchmarkGPT-5.2-CodexGPT-5.4 ProLeader
GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run)89.9%Not measuredOnly GPT-5.2-Codex measured
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)35.7%Not measuredOnly GPT-5.2-Codex measured
GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run)Not measured94.6%Only GPT-5.4 Pro measured
ARC-AGINot measured94.5%Only GPT-5.4 Pro measured
ARC-AGI-2Not measured83.3%Only GPT-5.4 Pro measured
SimpleBenchNot measured74.1%Only GPT-5.4 Pro measured
Chess puzzlesNot measured59.0%Only GPT-5.4 Pro measured
Neither model has a result on the other 14 boards here
MathDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index2 boards, none shared
Math benchmarks for GPT-5.2-Codex and GPT-5.4 Pro
BenchmarkGPT-5.2-CodexGPT-5.4 ProLeader
FrontierMath, tiers 1 to 3Not measured82.5%Only GPT-5.4 Pro measured
FrontierMath, tier 4Not measured58.5%Only GPT-5.4 Pro measured
Neither model has a result on the other 11 boards here
KnowledgeDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index1 board, none shared
Knowledge benchmarks for GPT-5.2-Codex and GPT-5.4 Pro
BenchmarkGPT-5.2-CodexGPT-5.4 ProLeader
SimpleQA VerifiedNot measured46.3%Only GPT-5.4 Pro measured
Neither model has a result on the other 16 boards here
Web designNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
Web design benchmarks for GPT-5.2-Codex and GPT-5.4 Pro
BenchmarkGPT-5.2-CodexGPT-5.4 ProLeader
Neither model has a result on 9 boards here
GeneralDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index2 boards, none shared
General benchmarks for GPT-5.2-Codex and GPT-5.4 Pro
BenchmarkGPT-5.2-CodexGPT-5.4 ProLeader
IFBench77.6%Not measuredOnly GPT-5.2-Codex measured
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR)82.3%Not measuredOnly GPT-5.2-Codex measured
Neither model has a result on the other 44 boards here
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
Image generation benchmarks for GPT-5.2-Codex and GPT-5.4 Pro
BenchmarkGPT-5.2-CodexGPT-5.4 ProLeader
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-5.2-Codex$0.0088Fits in one request
GPT-5.4 Pro$0.120Fits in one request

GPT-5.2-Codex costs less

Repository review

50K input + 3K output tokens

GPT-5.2-Codex$0.130Fits in one request
GPT-5.4 Pro$2.04Fits in one request

GPT-5.2-Codex costs less

Agent loop

200K input + 10K output tokens

GPT-5.2-Codex$0.490Fits in one request
GPT-5.4 Pro$7.80Fits in one request

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.

Specifications of GPT-5.2-Codex and GPT-5.4 Pro
SpecificationOpenAI GPT-5.2-CodexOpenAI GPT-5.4 Pro
MakerOpenAIOpenAI
WeightsNo public weights listedNo public weights listed
ReleasedJanuary 14, 2026March 5, 2026
Context window400K1.05M
Input $/Mtok$1.75$30.00
Output $/Mtok$14.00$180.00
Coding index45.4Not benchmarked
Independent measurements behind it30
Cost per solved task$0.43Not computable
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is GPT-5.2-Codex better than GPT-5.4 Pro for coding?

Only GPT-5.2-Codex has a coding score, 45.4 on the Vibe Coding Index; GPT-5.4 Pro has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. GPT-5.4 Pro has the edge where the context window is larger, 1.05M against 400K tokens.

Which is cheaper, GPT-5.2-Codex or GPT-5.4 Pro?

GPT-5.2-Codex costs $1.75 per million input tokens and $14.00 per million output tokens; GPT-5.4 Pro costs $30.00 and $180.00. Cost per solved task is known for GPT-5.2-Codex only.

Which has the bigger context window, GPT-5.2-Codex or GPT-5.4 Pro?

GPT-5.4 Pro, with 1.05M tokens against 400K.

How many benchmarks is the GPT-5.2-Codex vs GPT-5.4 Pro comparison based on?

0 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 21, 2026. GPT-5.2-Codex's coding index rests on 3 independent benchmarks and GPT-5.4 Pro's on 0. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.

Compare next