LLMBenchmark.ai

Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

GPT-5.2-Codex vs Qwen3.5 397B A17B

Updated October 21, 2026. 11 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
55.1
Overall
28.5
Output $/M
$14.00
5
Qwen3.5 397B A17BQwen
Coding
28.6
Overall
21.4
Output $/M
$2.34
6
vs boards won of 11 shared

Decision reading

Pick GPT-5.2-Codex for coding: it scores 55.1 on the Vibe Coding Index against 28.6 for Qwen3.5 397B A17B.

Pick Qwen3.5 397B A17B when output tokens cost 6.0x less, or when what matters is LMArena WebDev or Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run), where it leads.

Shared results
11
GPT-5.2-Codex only
11
Qwen3.5 397B A17B only
54
Like-for-like categories
5 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 55.1 from 2 benchmarks, Qwen3.5 397B A17B 28.6 from 1 benchmark.
Widest category
Coding, 11.0 points apart on average over 5 shared benchmarks.
Widest single gap
ALE-Bench: GPT-5.2-Codex 1299.9 against Qwen3.5 397B A17B 621.9, 22.6 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
Output price
GPT-5.2-Codex $14.00 against Qwen3.5 397B A17B $2.34 per million output tokens, 6.0x apart.
Context window
GPT-5.2-Codex takes 400K tokens, Qwen3.5 397B A17B 262K.

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.

Boards won, where both have a result
CategoryGPT-5.2-CodexBarsQwen3.5 397B A17BTies
Coding14
Intelligence10
Agentic work01
Reasoning20
General11
All shared boards56
CodingLike-for-likeFour of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index14
Coding benchmarks for GPT-5.2-Codex and Qwen3.5 397B A17B
BenchmarkGPT-5.2-CodexQwen3.5 397B A17BLeader
SWE-bench Verified72.8%Not measuredOnly GPT-5.2-Codex measured
SWE-bench Multilingual66.3%Not measuredOnly GPT-5.2-Codex measured
LMArena WebDev13391400Qwen3.5 397B A17B
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
SciCodeNot measured44.8%Only Qwen3.5 397B A17B measured
Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run)37.1%40.9%Qwen3.5 397B A17B
Terminal-Bench66.5%Not measuredOnly GPT-5.2-Codex measured
ALE-Bench1299.9621.9GPT-5.2-Codex
LMArena Text: codingNot measured1464Only Qwen3.5 397B A17B measured
LMArena Text: software and ITNot measured1463Only Qwen3.5 397B A17B measured
LMArena WebDev: React13291388Qwen3.5 397B A17B
LMArena WebDev: HTML13481410Qwen3.5 397B A17B
Neither model has a result on the other 24 boards here
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index10
Intelligence benchmarks for GPT-5.2-Codex and Qwen3.5 397B A17B
BenchmarkGPT-5.2-CodexQwen3.5 397B A17BLeader
AA Intelligence Index28.521.4GPT-5.2-Codex
Epoch Capabilities IndexNot measured146.8Only Qwen3.5 397B A17B measured
Agentic workLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
Agentic work benchmarks for GPT-5.2-Codex and Qwen3.5 397B A17B
BenchmarkGPT-5.2-CodexQwen3.5 397B A17BLeader
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%95.6%Qwen3.5 397B A17B
APEX-AgentsNot measured24.9%Only Qwen3.5 397B A17B measured
Neither model has a result on the other 32 boards here
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index20
Reasoning benchmarks for GPT-5.2-Codex and Qwen3.5 397B A17B
BenchmarkGPT-5.2-CodexQwen3.5 397B A17BLeader
GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run)89.9%89.3%GPT-5.2-Codex
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)35.7%29.0%GPT-5.2-Codex
GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run)Not measured86.4%Only Qwen3.5 397B A17B measured
Mystery game puzzlesNot measured18.0%Only Qwen3.5 397B A17B measured
LMArena Text: hard promptsNot measured1448Only Qwen3.5 397B A17B measured
LMArena Text: expertNot measured1462Only Qwen3.5 397B A17B measured
LMArena Text: hard prompts in EnglishNot measured1450Only Qwen3.5 397B A17B measured
LMArena Vision: diagramsNot measured1277Only Qwen3.5 397B A17B measured
LMArena Vision: homeworkNot measured1292Only Qwen3.5 397B A17B measured
Neither model has a result on the other 12 boards here
MathDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index4 boards, none shared
Math benchmarks for GPT-5.2-Codex and Qwen3.5 397B A17B
BenchmarkGPT-5.2-CodexQwen3.5 397B A17BLeader
OTIS Mock AIMENot measured88.9%Only Qwen3.5 397B A17B measured
FrontierMath, tiers 1 to 3Not measured31.2%Only Qwen3.5 397B A17B measured
LMArena Text: mathNot measured1453Only Qwen3.5 397B A17B measured
LMArena Text: mathematical workNot measured1454Only Qwen3.5 397B A17B measured
Neither model has a result on the other 9 boards here
KnowledgeDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index4 boards, none shared
Knowledge benchmarks for GPT-5.2-Codex and Qwen3.5 397B A17B
BenchmarkGPT-5.2-CodexQwen3.5 397B A17BLeader
LMArena Text: scienceNot measured1457Only Qwen3.5 397B A17B measured
LMArena Text: medicine and healthcareNot measured1455Only Qwen3.5 397B A17B measured
LMArena Text: legal and governmentNot measured1441Only Qwen3.5 397B A17B measured
LMArena Text: business and financeNot measured1435Only Qwen3.5 397B A17B measured
Neither model has a result on the other 13 boards here
Web designDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index7 boards, none shared
Web design benchmarks for GPT-5.2-Codex and Qwen3.5 397B A17B
BenchmarkGPT-5.2-CodexQwen3.5 397B A17BLeader
Design Arena: websitesNot measured1191Only Qwen3.5 397B A17B measured
Design Arena: UI componentsNot measured1163Only Qwen3.5 397B A17B measured
Design Arena: game devNot measured1141Only Qwen3.5 397B A17B measured
Design Arena: data vizNot measured1175Only Qwen3.5 397B A17B measured
Design Arena: 3DNot measured1161Only Qwen3.5 397B A17B measured
Design Arena: all code categoriesNot measured1180Only Qwen3.5 397B A17B measured
Design Arena: SVGNot measured1139Only Qwen3.5 397B A17B measured
Neither model has a result on the other 2 boards here
GeneralLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index11
General benchmarks for GPT-5.2-Codex and Qwen3.5 397B A17B
BenchmarkGPT-5.2-CodexQwen3.5 397B A17BLeader
IFBench77.6%78.8%Qwen3.5 397B A17B
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR)82.3%77.3%GPT-5.2-Codex
DTBenchNot measured87.5%Only Qwen3.5 397B A17B measured
LMCANot measured37.9%Only Qwen3.5 397B A17B measured
LMArena TextNot measured1437Only Qwen3.5 397B A17B measured
LMArena Text: instruction followingNot measured1424Only Qwen3.5 397B A17B measured
LMArena Text: creative writingNot measured1402Only Qwen3.5 397B A17B measured
LMArena VisionNot measured1262Only Qwen3.5 397B A17B measured
LMArena Text: EnglishNot measured1443Only Qwen3.5 397B A17B measured
LMArena Text: non-EnglishNot measured1430Only Qwen3.5 397B A17B measured
LMArena Text: ChineseNot measured1498Only Qwen3.5 397B A17B measured
LMArena Text: GermanNot measured1445Only Qwen3.5 397B A17B measured
LMArena Text: JapaneseNot measured1429Only Qwen3.5 397B A17B measured
LMArena Text: KoreanNot measured1384Only Qwen3.5 397B A17B measured
LMArena Text: FrenchNot measured1462Only Qwen3.5 397B A17B measured
LMArena Text: SpanishNot measured1441Only Qwen3.5 397B A17B measured
LMArena Text: RussianNot measured1430Only Qwen3.5 397B A17B measured
LMArena Text: PolishNot measured1447Only Qwen3.5 397B A17B measured
LMArena Text: multi-turnNot measured1446Only Qwen3.5 397B A17B measured
LMArena Text: longer queriesNot measured1441Only Qwen3.5 397B A17B measured
LMArena Text: writing and languageNot measured1415Only Qwen3.5 397B A17B measured
LMArena Text: entertainment and mediaNot measured1399Only Qwen3.5 397B A17B measured
LMArena Vision: EnglishNot measured1268Only Qwen3.5 397B A17B measured
LMArena Vision: ChineseNot measured1314Only Qwen3.5 397B A17B measured
LMArena Vision: reading textNot measured1271Only Qwen3.5 397B A17B measured
LMArena Vision: humorNot measured1262Only Qwen3.5 397B A17B measured
LMArena Vision: captioningNot measured1230Only Qwen3.5 397B A17B measured
LMArena Vision: recognizing thingsNot measured1265Only Qwen3.5 397B A17B measured
LMArena Vision: creative writingNot measured1260Only Qwen3.5 397B A17B measured
Neither model has a result on the other 17 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 Qwen3.5 397B A17B
BenchmarkGPT-5.2-CodexQwen3.5 397B A17BLeader
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
Qwen3.5 397B A17B$0.0016Fits in one request

Qwen3.5 397B A17B costs less

Repository review

50K input + 3K output tokens

GPT-5.2-Codex$0.130Fits in one request
Qwen3.5 397B A17B$0.027Fits in one request

Qwen3.5 397B A17B costs less

Agent loop

200K input + 10K output tokens

GPT-5.2-Codex$0.490Fits in one request
Qwen3.5 397B A17B$0.101Fits in one request

Qwen3.5 397B A17B 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 Qwen3.5 397B A17B
SpecificationOpenAI GPT-5.2-CodexQwen3.5 397B A17B
MakerOpenAIQwen
WeightsNo public weights listedOpen weights
ReleasedJanuary 14, 2026February 16, 2026
Context window400K262K
Input $/Mtok$1.75$0.39
Output $/Mtok$14.00$2.34
Coding index55.128.6
Independent measurements behind it21
Cost per solved task$0.43Not computable
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is GPT-5.2-Codex better than Qwen3.5 397B A17B for coding?

Pick GPT-5.2-Codex for coding: it scores 55.1 on the Vibe Coding Index against 28.6 for Qwen3.5 397B A17B. Pick Qwen3.5 397B A17B when output tokens cost 6.0x less, or when what matters is LMArena WebDev or Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run), where it leads.

Which is cheaper, GPT-5.2-Codex or Qwen3.5 397B A17B?

GPT-5.2-Codex costs $1.75 per million input tokens and $14.00 per million output tokens; Qwen3.5 397B A17B costs $0.39 and $2.34. Cost per solved task is known for GPT-5.2-Codex only.

Which has the bigger context window, GPT-5.2-Codex or Qwen3.5 397B A17B?

GPT-5.2-Codex, with 400K tokens against 262K.

How many benchmarks is the GPT-5.2-Codex vs Qwen3.5 397B A17B comparison based on?

11 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 21, 2026. GPT-5.2-Codex's coding index rests on 2 independent benchmarks and Qwen3.5 397B A17B's on 1. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.

Compare next