Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

GPT-5.2-Codex vs Qwen2.5 7B Instruct

Qwen2.5 7B Instruct costs 70.0x less per output token than GPT-5.2-Codex ($0.20 vs $14.00 per million). Updated October 21, 2026; no benchmark has tested both models yet.

GPT-5.2-CodexOpenAI
Coding
45.4
Overall
No data
Output $/M
$14.00
Qwen2.5 7B InstructQwen
Coding
No data
Overall
No data
Output $/M
$0.20
vs $14.00 vs $0.20 per 1M output tokens. Qwen2.5 7B Instruct is 70.0x cheaper.

GPT-5.2-Codex or Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: which to pick

Only GPT-5.2-Codex has a coding score, 45.4 on the Vibe Coding Index; Qwen2.5 7B Instruct has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding.

Pick Qwen2.5 7B Instruct for output tokens 70.0x cheaper ($0.20 vs $14.00 per million).

No benchmark has tested both yet. GPT-5.2-Codex has results on SWE-bench Verified, SWE-bench Multilingual and LMArena WebDev; Qwen2.5 7B Instruct on Epoch Capabilities Index, BALROG 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.

At a glance

Coding index
GPT-5.2-Codex 45.4 from 3 benchmarks, Qwen2.5 7B Instruct 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-Codex $14.00 against Qwen2.5 7B Instruct $0.20 per million output tokens, 70.0x apart.
Context window
GPT-5.2-Codex takes 400K tokens, Qwen2.5 7B Instruct 33K.

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 Index11 boards measured
Coding benchmarks for GPT-5.2-Codex and Qwen2.5 7B Instruct
BenchmarkGPT-5.2-CodexQwen2.5 7B InstructLeader
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
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 28 boards here
IntelligenceDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index2 boards measured
Intelligence benchmarks for GPT-5.2-Codex and Qwen2.5 7B Instruct
BenchmarkGPT-5.2-CodexQwen2.5 7B InstructLeader
AA Intelligence Index28.5Not measuredOnly GPT-5.2-Codex measured
Epoch Capabilities IndexNot measured118.5Only Qwen2.5 7B Instruct measured
Agentic workDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index7 boards measured
Agentic work benchmarks for GPT-5.2-Codex and Qwen2.5 7B Instruct
BenchmarkGPT-5.2-CodexQwen2.5 7B InstructLeader
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 apps1090Not 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
BALROGNot measured7.8%Only Qwen2.5 7B Instruct measured
Neither model has a result on the other 34 boards here
ReasoningDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index3 boards measured
Reasoning benchmarks for GPT-5.2-Codex and Qwen2.5 7B Instruct
BenchmarkGPT-5.2-CodexQwen2.5 7B InstructLeader
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 measured35.5%Only Qwen2.5 7B Instruct measured
Neither model has a result on the other 19 boards here
MathDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index1 board measured
Math benchmarks for GPT-5.2-Codex and Qwen2.5 7B Instruct
BenchmarkGPT-5.2-CodexQwen2.5 7B InstructLeader
OTIS Mock AIMENot measured2.5%Only Qwen2.5 7B Instruct measured
Neither model has a result on the other 12 boards here
KnowledgeDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index1 board measured
Knowledge benchmarks for GPT-5.2-Codex and Qwen2.5 7B Instruct
BenchmarkGPT-5.2-CodexQwen2.5 7B InstructLeader
MMLUNot measured72.9%Only Qwen2.5 7B Instruct measured
Neither model has a result on the other 17 boards here
GeneralDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index4 boards measured
General benchmarks for GPT-5.2-Codex and Qwen2.5 7B Instruct
BenchmarkGPT-5.2-CodexQwen2.5 7B InstructLeader
IFBench77.6%Not measuredOnly GPT-5.2-Codex measured
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR)82.3%Not measuredOnly GPT-5.2-Codex measured
DTBenchNot measured47.7%Only Qwen2.5 7B Instruct measured
LMCANot measured6.4%Only Qwen2.5 7B Instruct measured
Neither model has a result on the other 42 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
Qwen2.5 7B Instruct$0.0002Fits in one request

Qwen2.5 7B Instruct costs less

Repository review

50K input + 3K output tokens

GPT-5.2-Codex$0.130Fits in one request
Qwen2.5 7B Instruct$0.0056Exceeds the context window

Qwen2.5 7B Instruct costs less

Agent loop

200K input + 10K output tokens

GPT-5.2-Codex$0.490Fits in one request
Qwen2.5 7B Instruct$0.022Exceeds the context window

Qwen2.5 7B Instruct 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 Qwen2.5 7B Instruct
SpecificationOpenAI GPT-5.2-CodexQwen2.5 7B Instruct
MakerOpenAIQwen
WeightsNo public weights listedOpen weights
ReleasedJanuary 14, 2026October 16, 2024
Context window400K33K
Input $/Mtok$1.75$0.10
Output $/Mtok$14.00$0.20
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 Qwen2.5 7B Instruct for coding?

Only GPT-5.2-Codex has a coding score, 45.4 on the Vibe Coding Index; Qwen2.5 7B Instruct has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Pick Qwen2.5 7B Instruct for output tokens 70.0x cheaper ($0.20 vs $14.00 per million).

Which is cheaper, GPT-5.2-Codex or Qwen2.5 7B Instruct?

GPT-5.2-Codex costs $1.75 per million input tokens and $14.00 per million output tokens; Qwen2.5 7B Instruct costs $0.10 and $0.20. Cost per solved task is known for GPT-5.2-Codex only.

Which has the bigger context window, GPT-5.2-Codex or Qwen2.5 7B Instruct?

GPT-5.2-Codex, with 400K tokens against 33K.

Has any benchmark tested both GPT-5.2-Codex and Qwen2.5 7B Instruct?

No benchmark has tested both yet. GPT-5.2-Codex has results on SWE-bench Verified, SWE-bench Multilingual and LMArena WebDev; Qwen2.5 7B Instruct on Epoch Capabilities Index, BALROG and GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run). Compare them on price and context instead. Data as of October 21, 2026.

Compare next