GPT-5.2 Pro vs Qwen3.5-Flash
Qwen3.5-Flash costs 646.2x less per output token than GPT-5.2 Pro ($0.26 vs $168.00 per million). Updated October 22, 2026; 3 benchmarks have a result for both.
GPT-5.2 Pro or Qwen3.5-Flash: which to pick
Only Qwen3.5-Flash has a coding score, 41.1 on the Vibe Coding Index; GPT-5.2 Pro has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding.
Pick GPT-5.2 Pro for work measured by Epoch Capabilities Index or Chess puzzles, where it leads.
- Shared results
- 3
- GPT-5.2 Pro only
- 4
- Qwen3.5-Flash only
- 52
- Like-for-like categories
- 3 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.
Coding
Vibe Coding Index, six public coding benchmarks
No call
Only Qwen3.5-Flash has a coding score, so no call is made.
One side not measured
Reasoning
GPQA Diamond
No call
Only Qwen3.5-Flash has a GPQA Diamond result, 82.8%.
Directional only
Math
AIME
No call
Only Qwen3.5-Flash has a AIME result, 92.5%.
Directional only
Knowledge
MMLU Pro
No call
Only Qwen3.5-Flash has a MMLU Pro result, 84.1%.
Directional only
Long documents
Listed context window
Qwen3.5-Flash
Qwen3.5-Flash takes 1M tokens against 400K.
Listed by OpenRouter
Everyday cost
1K input + 500 output tokens
Qwen3.5-Flash
GPT-5.2 Pro $0.105, Qwen3.5-Flash $0.0002 per turn.
List prices
Cost per solved task
One SWE-bench Verified task, solved
No call
Only Qwen3.5-Flash has the number, $0.40.
Directional only
At a glance
- Coding index
- GPT-5.2 Pro not benchmarked, Qwen3.5-Flash 41.1 from 2 benchmarks.
- Widest category
- Math, 55.8 points apart on average over 1 shared benchmark.
- Widest single gap
- FrontierMath, tiers 1 to 3: GPT-5.2 Pro 74.0% against Qwen3.5-Flash 18.2%, 55.8 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
- Output price
- GPT-5.2 Pro $168.00 against Qwen3.5-Flash $0.26 per million output tokens, 646.2x apart.
- Context window
- GPT-5.2 Pro takes 400K tokens, Qwen3.5-Flash 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.
| Category | GPT-5.2 Pro | Bars | Qwen3.5-Flash | Ties |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence | 1 | 0 | ||
| Reasoning | 1 | 0 | ||
| Math | 1 | 0 | ||
| All shared boards | 3 | 0 |
CodingDirectional onlySix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index8 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | GPT-5.2 Pro | Qwen3.5-Flash | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| LMArena WebDev | Not measured | 1244 | Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured |
| LiveCodeBench (Vals AI) | Not measured | 83.3% | Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured |
| SWE-bench Verified (Vals AI) | Not measured | 64.4% | Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured |
| ALE-Bench | Not measured | 265.9 | Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured |
| LMArena Text: coding | Not measured | 1412 | Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured |
| LMArena Text: software and IT | Not measured | 1416 | Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured |
| LMArena WebDev: React | Not measured | 1229 | Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured |
| LMArena WebDev: HTML | Not measured | 1291 | Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 31 boards here | |||
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index10
| Benchmark | GPT-5.2 Pro | Qwen3.5-Flash | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 156.3 | 143.5 | GPT-5.2 Pro |
| Neither model has a result on the other 1 board here | |||
Agentic workNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | GPT-5.2 Pro | Qwen3.5-Flash | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Neither model has a result on 41 boards here | |||
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index10
| Benchmark | GPT-5.2 Pro | Qwen3.5-Flash | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | Not measured | 82.8% | Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured |
| MMMU Pro (Vals AI) | Not measured | 81.9% | Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured |
| GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run) | Not measured | 82.3% | Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured |
| ARC-AGI | 90.5% | Not measured | Only GPT-5.2 Pro measured |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 54.2% | Not measured | Only GPT-5.2 Pro measured |
| SimpleBench | 57.4% | Not measured | Only GPT-5.2 Pro measured |
| Chess puzzles | 60.0% | 14.0% | GPT-5.2 Pro |
| Mystery game puzzles | Not measured | 20.0% | Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured |
| LMArena Text: hard prompts | Not measured | 1403 | Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured |
| LMArena Text: expert | Not measured | 1407 | Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured |
| LMArena Text: hard prompts in English | Not measured | 1409 | Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 11 boards here | |||
MathLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index10
| Benchmark | GPT-5.2 Pro | Qwen3.5-Flash | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AIME | Not measured | 92.5% | Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured |
| OTIS Mock AIME | Not measured | 84.4% | Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured |
| FrontierMath, tiers 1 to 3 | 74.0% | 18.2% | GPT-5.2 Pro |
| FrontierMath, tier 4 | 46.0% | Not measured | Only GPT-5.2 Pro measured |
| LMArena Text: math | Not measured | 1407 | Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured |
| LMArena Text: mathematical work | Not measured | 1413 | Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 7 boards here | |||
KnowledgeDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index12 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | GPT-5.2 Pro | Qwen3.5-Flash | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMLU Pro | Not measured | 84.1% | Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured |
| LegalBench (Vals AI) | Not measured | 84.3% | Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured |
| CaseLaw (Vals AI) | Not measured | 56.0% | Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured |
| CorpFin (Vals AI) | Not measured | 63.6% | Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured |
| TaxEval (Vals AI) | Not measured | 72.2% | Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured |
| MortgageTax (Vals AI) | Not measured | 67.4% | Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured |
| MedCode (Vals AI) | Not measured | 33.0% | Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured |
| SimpleQA Verified | Not measured | 20.3% | Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured |
| LMArena Text: science | Not measured | 1415 | Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured |
| LMArena Text: medicine and healthcare | Not measured | 1407 | Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured |
| LMArena Text: legal and government | Not measured | 1398 | Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured |
| LMArena Text: business and finance | Not measured | 1394 | Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 6 boards here | |||
Web designNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | GPT-5.2 Pro | Qwen3.5-Flash | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Neither model has a result on 9 boards here | |||
GeneralDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index21 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | GPT-5.2 Pro | Qwen3.5-Flash | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| SAGE (Vals AI) | Not measured | 42.5% | Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured |
| MedScribe (Vals AI) | Not measured | 70.6% | Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured |
| DTBench | Not measured | 82.9% | Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured |
| LMCA | Not measured | 29.1% | Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured |
| LMArena Text | Not measured | 1397 | Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured |
| LMArena Text: instruction following | Not measured | 1374 | Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured |
| LMArena Text: creative writing | Not measured | 1343 | Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured |
| LMArena Text: English | Not measured | 1404 | Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured |
| LMArena Text: non-English | Not measured | 1385 | Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured |
| LMArena Text: Chinese | Not measured | 1445 | Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured |
| LMArena Text: German | Not measured | 1390 | Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured |
| LMArena Text: Japanese | Not measured | 1369 | Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured |
| LMArena Text: Korean | Not measured | 1344 | Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured |
| LMArena Text: French | Not measured | 1413 | Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured |
| LMArena Text: Spanish | Not measured | 1400 | Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured |
| LMArena Text: Russian | Not measured | 1380 | Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured |
| LMArena Text: Polish | Not measured | 1376 | Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured |
| LMArena Text: multi-turn | Not measured | 1393 | Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured |
| LMArena Text: longer queries | Not measured | 1392 | Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured |
| LMArena Text: writing and language | Not measured | 1369 | Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured |
| LMArena Text: entertainment and media | Not measured | 1347 | Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 25 boards here | |||
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | GPT-5.2 Pro | Qwen3.5-Flash | 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
Qwen3.5-Flash costs less
Repository review
50K input + 3K output tokens
Qwen3.5-Flash costs less
Agent loop
200K input + 10K output tokens
Qwen3.5-Flash 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 Pro | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Maker | OpenAI | Qwen |
| Weights | No public weights listed | No public weights listed |
| Released | December 10, 2025 | February 25, 2026 |
| Context window | 400K | 1M |
| Input $/Mtok | $21.00 | $0.065 |
| Output $/Mtok | $168.00 | $0.26 |
| Coding index | Not benchmarked | 41.1 |
| Independent measurements behind it | 0 | 2 |
| Cost per solved task | Not computable | $0.40 |
| Source | OpenRouter listing | OpenRouter listing |
Questions
Is GPT-5.2 Pro better than Qwen3.5-Flash for coding?
Only Qwen3.5-Flash has a coding score, 41.1 on the Vibe Coding Index; GPT-5.2 Pro has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Pick GPT-5.2 Pro for work measured by Epoch Capabilities Index or Chess puzzles, where it leads.
Which is cheaper, GPT-5.2 Pro or Qwen3.5-Flash?
GPT-5.2 Pro costs $21.00 per million input tokens and $168.00 per million output tokens; Qwen3.5-Flash costs $0.065 and $0.26. Cost per solved task is known for Qwen3.5-Flash only.
Which has the bigger context window, GPT-5.2 Pro or Qwen3.5-Flash?
Qwen3.5-Flash, with 1M tokens against 400K.
How many benchmarks is the GPT-5.2 Pro vs Qwen3.5-Flash comparison based on?
3 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 22, 2026. GPT-5.2 Pro's coding index rests on 0 independent benchmarks and Qwen3.5-Flash's on 2. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.