Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

GPT-5.2-Codex vs Qwen3.8 27B

Qwen3.8 27B leads GPT-5.2-Codex on coding, 74.2 to 45.4 on the Vibe Coding Index, and Qwen3.8 27B costs 5.5x less per output token ($2.55 vs $14.00 per million). Updated October 22, 2026; 10 benchmarks have a result for both.

GPT-5.2-CodexOpenAI
Coding
45.4
Overall
No data
Output $/M
$14.00
3
Qwen3.8 27BQwen
Coding
74.2
Overall
59.6
Output $/M
$2.55
7
vs boards won of 10 shared

GPT-5.2-Codex or Qwen3.8 27B: which to pick

Pick Qwen3.8 27B for coding: it scores 74.2 on the Vibe Coding Index against 45.4 for GPT-5.2-Codex.

Pick GPT-5.2-Codex for a lower cost per solved task ($0.43 against $1.26) and work measured by LiveCodeBench (Vals AI) or Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run), where it leads.

Shared results
10
GPT-5.2-Codex only
12
Qwen3.8 27B only
75
Like-for-like categories
4 of 9

Only benchmarks that tested both models count toward a pick; a result only one model has is shown but not compared.

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, Qwen3.8 27B 74.2 from 4 benchmarks.
Widest category
Coding, 27.1 points apart on average over 6 shared benchmarks.
Widest single gap
LMArena WebDev: React: GPT-5.2-Codex 1329 against Qwen3.8 27B 1602, 45.1 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
Output price
GPT-5.2-Codex $14.00 against Qwen3.8 27B $2.55 per million output tokens, 5.5x apart.
Context window
GPT-5.2-Codex takes 400K tokens, Qwen3.8 27B 1M.

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-CodexBarsQwen3.8 27BTies
Coding15
Intelligence01
Reasoning11
General10
All shared boards37
CodingLike-for-likeSix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index15
Coding benchmarks for GPT-5.2-Codex and Qwen3.8 27B
BenchmarkGPT-5.2-CodexQwen3.8 27BLeader
SWE-bench Verified72.8%Not measuredOnly GPT-5.2-Codex measured
SWE-bench Multilingual66.3%Not measuredOnly GPT-5.2-Codex measured
LiveBench codingNot measured86.8%Only Qwen3.8 27B measured
LMArena WebDev13391593Qwen3.8 27B
AA Coding IndexNot measured68.1Only Qwen3.8 27B measured
LiveCodeBench (Vals AI)88.0%84.0%GPT-5.2-Codex
SWE-bench Verified (Vals AI)72.4%86.0%Qwen3.8 27B
Vibe Code Bench (Vals AI)37.9%64.8%Qwen3.8 27B
Code migration (Vals AI)Not measured14.2%Only Qwen3.8 27B measured
ProgramBench (Vals AI)Not measured0.0%Only Qwen3.8 27B measured
IOI (Vals AI)Not measured39.1%Only Qwen3.8 27B measured
Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals AI)Not measured58.4%Only Qwen3.8 27B measured
SkillsBench (Vals AI)Not measured38.1%Only Qwen3.8 27B measured
CyberBench (Vals AI)Not measured67.8%Only Qwen3.8 27B measured
SciCodeNot measured46.6%Only Qwen3.8 27B 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 Text: codingNot measured1483Only Qwen3.8 27B measured
LMArena Text: software and ITNot measured1478Only Qwen3.8 27B measured
LMArena WebDev: React13291602Qwen3.8 27B
LMArena WebDev: HTML13481570Qwen3.8 27B
LMArena WebDev: from an imageNot measured1577Only Qwen3.8 27B measured
Neither model has a result on the other 16 boards here
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
Intelligence benchmarks for GPT-5.2-Codex and Qwen3.8 27B
BenchmarkGPT-5.2-CodexQwen3.8 27BLeader
AA Intelligence Index28.533.7Qwen3.8 27B
Epoch Capabilities IndexNot measured151.7Only Qwen3.8 27B measured
Agentic workDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index16 boards, none shared
Agentic work benchmarks for GPT-5.2-Codex and Qwen3.8 27B
BenchmarkGPT-5.2-CodexQwen3.8 27BLeader
AA Agentic IndexNot measured45.8Only Qwen3.8 27B measured
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
LiveBench researchNot measured59.4%Only Qwen3.8 27B measured
LiveBench browserNot measured32.0%Only Qwen3.8 27B measured
LiveBench long agenticNot measured27.9%Only Qwen3.8 27B measured
Finance Agent (Vals AI)Not measured48.5%Only Qwen3.8 27B measured
Tax Agent Bench (Vals AI)Not measured30.9%Only Qwen3.8 27B measured
Legal Research Bench (Vals AI)Not measured36.1%Only Qwen3.8 27B measured
Excel Modeling Benchmark (Vals AI)Not measured59.7%Only Qwen3.8 27B measured
Terminal-Bench-Science (Vals AI)Not measured0.0%Only Qwen3.8 27B measured
τ²-Bench Telecom92.1%Not measuredOnly GPT-5.2-Codex measured
APEX-AgentsNot measured47.5%Only Qwen3.8 27B measured
Neither model has a result on the other 25 boards here
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index11
Reasoning benchmarks for GPT-5.2-Codex and Qwen3.8 27B
BenchmarkGPT-5.2-CodexQwen3.8 27BLeader
GPQA DiamondNot measured88.9%Only Qwen3.8 27B measured
LiveBench reasoningNot measured80.0%Only Qwen3.8 27B measured
MMMU Pro (Vals AI)Not measured83.9%Only Qwen3.8 27B measured
GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run)89.9%90.5%Qwen3.8 27B
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)35.7%33.9%GPT-5.2-Codex
ARC-AGINot measured87.5%Only Qwen3.8 27B measured
ARC-AGI-2Not measured42.4%Only Qwen3.8 27B measured
LMArena Text: hard promptsNot measured1459Only Qwen3.8 27B measured
LMArena Text: expertNot measured1479Only Qwen3.8 27B measured
LMArena Text: hard prompts in EnglishNot measured1461Only Qwen3.8 27B measured
LMArena Vision: diagramsNot measured1285Only Qwen3.8 27B measured
LMArena Vision: homeworkNot measured1295Only Qwen3.8 27B measured
Neither model has a result on the other 10 boards here
MathDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index3 boards, none shared
Math benchmarks for GPT-5.2-Codex and Qwen3.8 27B
BenchmarkGPT-5.2-CodexQwen3.8 27BLeader
ProofBenchNot measured16.0%Only Qwen3.8 27B measured
LMArena Text: mathNot measured1455Only Qwen3.8 27B measured
LMArena Text: mathematical workNot measured1458Only Qwen3.8 27B measured
Neither model has a result on the other 10 boards here
KnowledgeDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index9 boards, none shared
Knowledge benchmarks for GPT-5.2-Codex and Qwen3.8 27B
BenchmarkGPT-5.2-CodexQwen3.8 27BLeader
MMLU ProNot measured84.3%Only Qwen3.8 27B measured
LegalBench (Vals AI)Not measured82.4%Only Qwen3.8 27B measured
TaxEval (Vals AI)Not measured70.8%Only Qwen3.8 27B measured
MortgageTax (Vals AI)Not measured64.9%Only Qwen3.8 27B measured
MedCode (Vals AI)Not measured28.7%Only Qwen3.8 27B measured
LMArena Text: scienceNot measured1467Only Qwen3.8 27B measured
LMArena Text: medicine and healthcareNot measured1437Only Qwen3.8 27B measured
LMArena Text: legal and governmentNot measured1447Only Qwen3.8 27B measured
LMArena Text: business and financeNot measured1438Only Qwen3.8 27B measured
Neither model has a result on the other 9 boards here
Web designDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index1 board, none shared
Web design benchmarks for GPT-5.2-Codex and Qwen3.8 27B
BenchmarkGPT-5.2-CodexQwen3.8 27BLeader
LiveBench designNot measured75.9%Only Qwen3.8 27B measured
Neither model has a result on the other 8 boards here
GeneralLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index10
General benchmarks for GPT-5.2-Codex and Qwen3.8 27B
BenchmarkGPT-5.2-CodexQwen3.8 27BLeader
LiveBench data analysisNot measured76.6%Only Qwen3.8 27B measured
SAGE (Vals AI)Not measured52.4%Only Qwen3.8 27B measured
MedScribe (Vals AI)Not measured83.8%Only Qwen3.8 27B measured
IFBench77.6%Not measuredOnly GPT-5.2-Codex measured
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR)82.3%82.0%GPT-5.2-Codex
DTBenchNot measured88.0%Only Qwen3.8 27B measured
LMCANot measured41.4%Only Qwen3.8 27B measured
Surface Evolver BenchNot measured45.0%Only Qwen3.8 27B measured
LMArena TextNot measured1440Only Qwen3.8 27B measured
LMArena Text: instruction followingNot measured1436Only Qwen3.8 27B measured
LMArena Text: creative writingNot measured1383Only Qwen3.8 27B measured
LMArena VisionNot measured1269Only Qwen3.8 27B measured
LMArena Text: EnglishNot measured1448Only Qwen3.8 27B measured
LMArena Text: non-EnglishNot measured1428Only Qwen3.8 27B measured
LMArena Text: ChineseNot measured1501Only Qwen3.8 27B measured
LMArena Text: GermanNot measured1443Only Qwen3.8 27B measured
LMArena Text: JapaneseNot measured1387Only Qwen3.8 27B measured
LMArena Text: KoreanNot measured1384Only Qwen3.8 27B measured
LMArena Text: FrenchNot measured1465Only Qwen3.8 27B measured
LMArena Text: SpanishNot measured1449Only Qwen3.8 27B measured
LMArena Text: RussianNot measured1415Only Qwen3.8 27B measured
LMArena Text: PolishNot measured1439Only Qwen3.8 27B measured
LMArena Text: multi-turnNot measured1440Only Qwen3.8 27B measured
LMArena Text: longer queriesNot measured1448Only Qwen3.8 27B measured
LMArena Text: writing and languageNot measured1405Only Qwen3.8 27B measured
LMArena Text: entertainment and mediaNot measured1393Only Qwen3.8 27B measured
LMArena Vision: EnglishNot measured1267Only Qwen3.8 27B measured
LMArena Vision: ChineseNot measured1326Only Qwen3.8 27B measured
LMArena Vision: reading textNot measured1281Only Qwen3.8 27B measured
LMArena Vision: humorNot measured1235Only Qwen3.8 27B measured
LMArena Vision: creative writingNot measured1237Only Qwen3.8 27B measured
Neither model has a result on the other 15 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 Qwen3.8 27B
BenchmarkGPT-5.2-CodexQwen3.8 27BLeader
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
Qwen3.8 27B$0.0017Fits in one request

Qwen3.8 27B costs less

Repository review

50K input + 3K output tokens

GPT-5.2-Codex$0.130Fits in one request
Qwen3.8 27B$0.029Fits in one request

Qwen3.8 27B costs less

Agent loop

200K input + 10K output tokens

GPT-5.2-Codex$0.490Fits in one request
Qwen3.8 27B$0.111Fits in one request

Qwen3.8 27B 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 Qwen3.8 27B
SpecificationOpenAI GPT-5.2-CodexQwen3.8 27B
MakerOpenAIQwen
WeightsNo public weights listedOpen weights
ReleasedJanuary 14, 2026August 14, 2026
Context window400K1M
Input $/Mtok$1.75$0.425
Output $/Mtok$14.00$2.55
Coding index45.474.2
Independent measurements behind it34
Cost per solved task$0.43$1.26
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is GPT-5.2-Codex better than Qwen3.8 27B for coding?

Pick Qwen3.8 27B for coding: it scores 74.2 on the Vibe Coding Index against 45.4 for GPT-5.2-Codex. Pick GPT-5.2-Codex for a lower cost per solved task ($0.43 against $1.26) and work measured by LiveCodeBench (Vals AI) or Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run), where it leads.

Which is cheaper, GPT-5.2-Codex or Qwen3.8 27B?

GPT-5.2-Codex costs $1.75 per million input tokens and $14.00 per million output tokens; Qwen3.8 27B costs $0.425 and $2.55. Per solved SWE-bench Verified task, GPT-5.2-Codex costs $0.43 and Qwen3.8 27B $1.26.

Which has the bigger context window, GPT-5.2-Codex or Qwen3.8 27B?

Qwen3.8 27B, with 1M tokens against 400K.

How many benchmarks is the GPT-5.2-Codex vs Qwen3.8 27B comparison based on?

10 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 22, 2026. GPT-5.2-Codex's coding index rests on 3 independent benchmarks and Qwen3.8 27B's on 4. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.

Compare next

Embed this comparison on your site

Free under CC BY 4.0, while the source link stays visible. Preview the frame · Terms and other embeds

<iframe src="https://llmbenchmark.ai/embed/compare/gpt-5-2-codex-vs-qwen3-8-27b" title="GPT-5.2-Codex vs Qwen3.8 27B, LLMBenchmark.ai" width="100%" height="360" style="border:0;max-width:100%" loading="lazy"></iframe>
<p style="font:13px/1.4 sans-serif;margin:6px 0 0">Source: <a href="https://llmbenchmark.ai/compare/gpt-5-2-codex-vs-qwen3-8-27b">LLMBenchmark.ai, GPT-5.2-Codex vs Qwen3.8 27B</a></p>