GPT-5.2-Codex vs Mistral Nemo
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.
- Coding
- 45.4
- Overall
- 28.5
- Output $/M
- $14.00
- Coding
- No data
- Overall
- No data
- Output $/M
- $0.15
Decision reading
Only GPT-5.2-Codex has a coding score, 45.4 on the Vibe Coding Index; Mistral Nemo has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding.
Mistral Nemo has the edge where output tokens cost 93.3x less.
- Shared results
- 0
- GPT-5.2-Codex only
- 22
- Mistral Nemo only
- 3
- 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.
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
Long documents
Listed context window
GPT-5.2-Codex
GPT-5.2-Codex takes 400K tokens against 131K.
Listed by OpenRouter
Everyday cost
1K input + 500 output tokens
Mistral Nemo
GPT-5.2-Codex $0.0088, Mistral Nemo $0.0002 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-5.2-Codex 45.4 from 3 benchmarks, Mistral Nemo 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 Mistral Nemo $0.15 per million output tokens, 93.3x apart.
- Context window
- GPT-5.2-Codex takes 400K tokens, Mistral Nemo 131K.
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 Index11 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | GPT-5.2-Codex | Mistral Nemo | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench Verified | 72.8% | Not measured | Only GPT-5.2-Codex measured |
| SWE-bench Multilingual | 66.3% | Not measured | Only GPT-5.2-Codex measured |
| LMArena WebDev | 1339 | Not measured | Only GPT-5.2-Codex measured |
| LiveCodeBench (Vals AI) | 88.0% | Not measured | Only GPT-5.2-Codex measured |
| SWE-bench Verified (Vals AI) | 72.4% | Not measured | Only GPT-5.2-Codex measured |
| Vibe Code Bench (Vals AI) | 37.9% | Not measured | Only GPT-5.2-Codex measured |
| Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run) | 37.1% | Not measured | Only GPT-5.2-Codex measured |
| Terminal-Bench | 66.5% | Not measured | Only GPT-5.2-Codex measured |
| ALE-Bench | 1299.9 | Not measured | Only GPT-5.2-Codex measured |
| LMArena WebDev: React | 1329 | Not measured | Only GPT-5.2-Codex measured |
| LMArena WebDev: HTML | 1348 | Not measured | Only GPT-5.2-Codex measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 27 boards here | |||
IntelligenceDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index2 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | GPT-5.2-Codex | Mistral Nemo | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Intelligence Index | 28.5 | Not measured | Only GPT-5.2-Codex measured |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | Not measured | 118.7 | Only Mistral Nemo measured |
Agentic workDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index6 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | GPT-5.2-Codex | Mistral Nemo | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Design Arena: agents building web apps | 1051 | Not measured | Only GPT-5.2-Codex measured |
| Design Arena: agents building full-stack apps | 993 | Not measured | Only GPT-5.2-Codex measured |
| Design Arena: agents building mobile apps | 1089 | Not measured | Only GPT-5.2-Codex measured |
| Design Arena: agents building Android apps | 1176 | Not measured | Only GPT-5.2-Codex measured |
| Design Arena: agents building Godot games | 1142 | Not measured | Only GPT-5.2-Codex measured |
| τ²-Bench Telecom | 92.1% | Not measured | Only 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 index2 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | GPT-5.2-Codex | Mistral Nemo | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run) | 89.9% | Not measured | Only GPT-5.2-Codex measured |
| Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run) | 35.7% | Not measured | Only GPT-5.2-Codex measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 19 boards here | |||
MathNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | GPT-5.2-Codex | Mistral Nemo | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Neither model has a result on 13 boards here | |||
KnowledgeDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index1 board, none shared
| Benchmark | GPT-5.2-Codex | Mistral Nemo | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMLU | Not measured | 65.3% | Only Mistral Nemo 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
| Benchmark | GPT-5.2-Codex | Mistral Nemo | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Neither model has a result on 9 boards here | |||
GeneralDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index3 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | GPT-5.2-Codex | Mistral Nemo | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| IFBench | 77.6% | Not measured | Only GPT-5.2-Codex measured |
| Long context reasoning (AA-LCR) | 82.3% | Not measured | Only GPT-5.2-Codex measured |
| DTBench | Not measured | 48.6% | Only Mistral Nemo measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 43 boards here | |||
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | GPT-5.2-Codex | Mistral Nemo | 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
Mistral Nemo costs less
Repository review
50K input + 3K output tokens
Mistral Nemo costs less
Agent loop
200K input + 10K output tokens
Mistral Nemo 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-Codex | Mistral Nemo |
|---|---|---|
| Maker | OpenAI | Mistral AI |
| Weights | No public weights listed | Open weights |
| Released | January 14, 2026 | July 19, 2024 |
| Context window | 400K | 131K |
| Input $/Mtok | $1.75 | $0.15 |
| Output $/Mtok | $14.00 | $0.15 |
| Coding index | 45.4 | Not benchmarked |
| Independent measurements behind it | 3 | 0 |
| Cost per solved task | $0.43 | Not computable |
| Source | OpenRouter listing | OpenRouter listing |
Questions
Is GPT-5.2-Codex better than Mistral Nemo for coding?
Only GPT-5.2-Codex has a coding score, 45.4 on the Vibe Coding Index; Mistral Nemo has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Mistral Nemo has the edge where output tokens cost 93.3x less.
Which is cheaper, GPT-5.2-Codex or Mistral Nemo?
GPT-5.2-Codex costs $1.75 per million input tokens and $14.00 per million output tokens; Mistral Nemo costs $0.15 and $0.15. Cost per solved task is known for GPT-5.2-Codex only.
Which has the bigger context window, GPT-5.2-Codex or Mistral Nemo?
GPT-5.2-Codex, with 400K tokens against 131K.
How many benchmarks is the GPT-5.2-Codex vs Mistral Nemo 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 Mistral Nemo's on 0. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.