GPT-5.2-Codex vs Sonar Pro
Updated October 21, 2026. 3 benchmarks have a result for both. Coding is ranked on the Vibe Coding Index; every other board is shown as published.
Decision reading
Only GPT-5.2-Codex has a coding score, 45.4 on the Vibe Coding Index; Sonar Pro has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding.
Compare them on price, context and the boards below.
- Shared results
- 3
- GPT-5.2-Codex only
- 19
- Sonar Pro only
- 2
- Like-for-like categories
- 2 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
GPT-5.2-Codex
GPT-5.2-Codex leads, 28.5 against 7.6.
Same board, both measured
Long documents
Listed context window
GPT-5.2-Codex
GPT-5.2-Codex takes 400K tokens against 200K.
Listed by OpenRouter
Everyday cost
1K input + 500 output tokens
GPT-5.2-Codex
GPT-5.2-Codex $0.0088, Sonar Pro $0.011 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, Sonar Pro not benchmarked.
- Widest category
- Reasoning, 30.6 points apart on average over 2 shared benchmarks.
- Widest single gap
- GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run): GPT-5.2-Codex 89.9% against Sonar Pro 57.8%, 32.1 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
- Output price
- GPT-5.2-Codex $14.00 against Sonar Pro $15.00 per million output tokens, 1.1x apart.
- Context window
- GPT-5.2-Codex takes 400K tokens, Sonar Pro 200K.
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-5.2-Codex | Bars | Sonar Pro | Ties |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence | 1 | 0 | ||
| Reasoning | 2 | 0 | ||
| All shared boards | 3 | 0 |
CodingDirectional onlySix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index12 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | GPT-5.2-Codex | Sonar Pro | 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 |
| LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run) | Not measured | 27.5% | Only Sonar Pro 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 26 boards here | |||
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index10
| Benchmark | GPT-5.2-Codex | Sonar Pro | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Intelligence Index | 28.5 | 7.6 | GPT-5.2-Codex |
| Neither model has a result on the other 1 board here | |||
Agentic workDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index6 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | GPT-5.2-Codex | Sonar Pro | 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 | |||
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index20
| Benchmark | GPT-5.2-Codex | Sonar Pro | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run) | 89.9% | 57.8% | GPT-5.2-Codex |
| Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run) | 35.7% | 6.6% | GPT-5.2-Codex |
| 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 | Sonar Pro | 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 | Sonar Pro | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMLU Pro (Artificial Analysis run) | Not measured | 75.5% | Only Sonar 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
| Benchmark | GPT-5.2-Codex | Sonar Pro | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Neither model has a result on 9 boards here | |||
GeneralDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index2 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | GPT-5.2-Codex | Sonar Pro | 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 |
| 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
| Benchmark | GPT-5.2-Codex | Sonar Pro | 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-5.2-Codex 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-5.2-Codex | Perplexity Sonar Pro |
|---|---|---|
| Maker | OpenAI | Perplexity |
| Weights | No public weights listed | No public weights listed |
| Released | January 14, 2026 | March 7, 2025 |
| Context window | 400K | 200K |
| Input $/Mtok | $1.75 | $3.00 |
| Output $/Mtok | $14.00 | $15.00 |
| 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 Sonar Pro for coding?
Only GPT-5.2-Codex has a coding score, 45.4 on the Vibe Coding Index; Sonar Pro has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Compare them on price, context and the boards below.
Which is cheaper, GPT-5.2-Codex or Sonar Pro?
GPT-5.2-Codex costs $1.75 per million input tokens and $14.00 per million output tokens; Sonar Pro costs $3.00 and $15.00. Cost per solved task is known for GPT-5.2-Codex only.
Which has the bigger context window, GPT-5.2-Codex or Sonar Pro?
GPT-5.2-Codex, with 400K tokens against 200K.
How many benchmarks is the GPT-5.2-Codex vs Sonar Pro comparison based on?
3 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 Sonar Pro's on 0. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.