Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

GPT-5.2 vs o3

GPT-5.2 leads o3 on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index, 30.4 to 20.2, and o3 costs 1.8x less per output token ($8.00 vs $14.00 per million). Updated October 21, 2026; 92 benchmarks have a result for both.

GPT-5.2OpenAI
Coding
55.9
Overall
60.7
Output $/M
$14.00
80
o3OpenAI
Coding
No data
Overall
51.1
Output $/M
$8.00
12
vs boards won of 92 shared

GPT-5.2 or o3: which to pick

Only GPT-5.2 has a coding score, 55.9 on the Vibe Coding Index; o3 has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding.

Pick o3 for output tokens 1.8x cheaper ($8.00 vs $14.00 per million) and a lower cost per solved task ($0.571 against $1.91).

Shared results
92
GPT-5.2 only
22
o3 only
10
Like-for-like categories
8 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 55.9 from 3 benchmarks, o3 not benchmarked.
Widest category
Web design, 16.1 points apart on average over 5 shared benchmarks.
Widest single gap
ARC-AGI-2: GPT-5.2 52.9% against o3 6.5%, 46.4 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
Output price
GPT-5.2 $14.00 against o3 $8.00 per million output tokens, 1.8x apart.
Context window
GPT-5.2 takes 400K tokens, o3 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.

Boards won, where both have a result
CategoryGPT-5.2Barso3Ties
Coding90
Intelligence20
Agentic work32
Reasoning152
Math80
Knowledge86
Web design50
General302
All shared boards8012
CodingLike-for-likeSix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index90
Coding benchmarks for GPT-5.2 and o3
BenchmarkGPT-5.2o3Leader
Aider polyglotNot measured81.3%Only o3 measured
SWE-bench Verified72.8%58.4%GPT-5.2
SWE-bench MultimodalNot measured36.0%Only o3 measured
SWE-bench Multilingual66.7%Not measuredOnly GPT-5.2 measured
LMArena WebDev1417Not measuredOnly GPT-5.2 measured
LiveCodeBench (Vals AI)85.4%83.9%GPT-5.2
SWE-bench Verified (Vals AI)75.8%Not measuredOnly GPT-5.2 measured
Vibe Code Bench (Vals AI)53.5%Not measuredOnly GPT-5.2 measured
LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run)89.4%80.8%GPT-5.2
Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run)47.0%37.1%GPT-5.2
Terminal-Bench64.9%Not measuredOnly GPT-5.2 measured
GSO-Bench27.5%8.8%GPT-5.2
WeirdML72.2%52.4%GPT-5.2
ALE-Bench1293.5933.5GPT-5.2
LMArena Text: coding14421407GPT-5.2
LMArena Text: software and IT14341415GPT-5.2
LMArena WebDev: HTML1427Not measuredOnly GPT-5.2 measured
SciCodeNot measured9.2%Only o3 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 21 boards here
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index20
Intelligence benchmarks for GPT-5.2 and o3
BenchmarkGPT-5.2o3Leader
AA Intelligence Index30.420.2GPT-5.2
Epoch Capabilities Index153.7146.7GPT-5.2
Agentic workLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index32
Agentic work benchmarks for GPT-5.2 and o3
BenchmarkGPT-5.2o3Leader
Design Arena: agents building web apps1086Not measuredOnly GPT-5.2 measured
Design Arena: agents building full-stack apps1043Not measuredOnly GPT-5.2 measured
Design Arena: agents building mobile apps1093Not measuredOnly GPT-5.2 measured
Design Arena: agents building Android apps1058Not measuredOnly GPT-5.2 measured
Design Arena: agents building Godot games1142Not measuredOnly GPT-5.2 measured
τ²-Bench Telecom84.8%80.7%GPT-5.2
METR time horizons75.3%65.4%GPT-5.2
Remote Labor Index2.5%Not measuredOnly GPT-5.2 measured
GDPval49.7%30.8%GPT-5.2
DeepResearch Bench41.1%45.2%o3
OSWorldNot measured23.0%Only o3 measured
Vending-Bench 2$3,591Not measuredOnly GPT-5.2 measured
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard (BFCL)55.9%63.0%o3
BrowseComp-PlusNot measured65.9%Only o3 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 27 boards here
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index152
Reasoning benchmarks for GPT-5.2 and o3
BenchmarkGPT-5.2o3Leader
GPQA Diamond91.7%84.1%GPT-5.2
MMMU Pro (Vals AI)86.7%80.4%GPT-5.2
GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run)90.3%82.7%GPT-5.2
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)37.7%20.1%GPT-5.2
GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run)91.4%81.8%GPT-5.2
ARC-AGI86.2%60.8%GPT-5.2
ARC-AGI-252.9%6.5%GPT-5.2
SimpleBench45.8%53.1%o3
Chess puzzles48.0%37.0%GPT-5.2
Mystery game puzzles23.0%29.0%o3
EBR-bench23.0%Not measuredOnly GPT-5.2 measured
VPCT84.0%52.0%GPT-5.2
LMArena Text: hard prompts14281402GPT-5.2
LMArena Text: expert14451402GPT-5.2
LMArena Text: hard prompts in English14311411GPT-5.2
LMArena Vision: diagrams12651220GPT-5.2
LMArena Vision: homework12761234GPT-5.2
Kagi LLM Benchmark73.3%67.6%GPT-5.2
Neither model has a result on the other 4 boards here
MathLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index80
Math benchmarks for GPT-5.2 and o3
BenchmarkGPT-5.2o3Leader
AIME96.9%85.3%GPT-5.2
MATH 500 (Vals AI)Not measured94.6%Only o3 measured
MGSM (Vals AI)94.0%91.8%GPT-5.2
AA Math Index99.088.3GPT-5.2
AIME 2025 (Artificial Analysis run)99.0%88.3%GPT-5.2
OTIS Mock AIME96.1%84.4%GPT-5.2
FrontierMath, tiers 1 to 367.4%33.3%GPT-5.2
FrontierMath, tier 431.7%Not measuredOnly GPT-5.2 measured
ProofBench15.0%Not measuredOnly GPT-5.2 measured
MATH level 5Not measured97.8%Only o3 measured
LMArena Text: math14401426GPT-5.2
LMArena Text: mathematical work14421423GPT-5.2
Neither model has a result on the other 1 board here
KnowledgeLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index86
Knowledge benchmarks for GPT-5.2 and o3
BenchmarkGPT-5.2o3Leader
MMLU Pro86.2%85.6%GPT-5.2
LegalBench (Vals AI)82.8%83.8%o3
CaseLaw (Vals AI)66.0%Not measuredOnly GPT-5.2 measured
CorpFin (Vals AI)65.9%59.7%GPT-5.2
TaxEval (Vals AI)75.8%74.6%GPT-5.2
MortgageTax (Vals AI)67.1%65.7%GPT-5.2
MedQA (Vals AI)94.1%96.1%o3
MedCode (Vals AI)49.8%47.3%GPT-5.2
MMLU Pro (Artificial Analysis run)87.4%85.3%GPT-5.2
SimpleQA Verified37.1%49.4%o3
GeoBenchNot measured74.0%Only o3 measured
LMArena Text: science14251429o3
LMArena Text: medicine and healthcare14251448o3
LMArena Text: legal and government14271428o3
LMArena Text: business and finance14141393GPT-5.2
FACTS Benchmark Suite48.5%44.4%GPT-5.2
Neither model has a result on the other 2 boards here
Web designLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index50
Web design benchmarks for GPT-5.2 and o3
BenchmarkGPT-5.2o3Leader
Design Arena: websites11951036GPT-5.2
Design Arena: UI components11901017GPT-5.2
Design Arena: game dev11951034GPT-5.2
Design Arena: data viz12021200GPT-5.2
Design Arena: 3D1079Not measuredOnly GPT-5.2 measured
Design Arena: all code categories11701020GPT-5.2
Design Arena: SVG1139Not measuredOnly GPT-5.2 measured
Design Arena: ASCII art1152Not measuredOnly GPT-5.2 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 1 board here
GeneralLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index302
General benchmarks for GPT-5.2 and o3
BenchmarkGPT-5.2o3Leader
SAGE (Vals AI)49.3%41.8%GPT-5.2
MedScribe (Vals AI)84.4%76.7%GPT-5.2
IFBench75.4%71.4%GPT-5.2
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR)82.7%74.7%GPT-5.2
DTBench90.9%84.8%GPT-5.2
LMCA43.9%39.7%GPT-5.2
Fiction.LiveBenchNot measured88.9%Only o3 measured
Creative writing (Lech Mazur)Not measured83.9%Only o3 measured
CL-bench18.2%17.8%GPT-5.2
Furniture assembly38.3%Not measuredOnly GPT-5.2 measured
LMArena Text14161410GPT-5.2
LMArena Text: instruction following14091368GPT-5.2
LMArena Text: creative writing13761359GPT-5.2
LMArena Vision12461214GPT-5.2
LMArena Text: English14221417GPT-5.2
LMArena Text: non-English14051401GPT-5.2
LMArena Text: Chinese14471437GPT-5.2
LMArena Text: German14441420GPT-5.2
LMArena Text: Japanese14201403GPT-5.2
LMArena Text: Korean13741370GPT-5.2
LMArena Text: French14541430GPT-5.2
LMArena Text: Spanish14131395GPT-5.2
LMArena Text: Russian14151406GPT-5.2
LMArena Text: Polish14261438o3
LMArena Text: multi-turn14191405GPT-5.2
LMArena Text: longer queries14131372GPT-5.2
LMArena Text: writing and language13921372GPT-5.2
LMArena Text: entertainment and media13781373GPT-5.2
LMArena Vision: English12431221GPT-5.2
LMArena Vision: Chinese13051237GPT-5.2
LMArena Vision: reading text12571218GPT-5.2
LMArena Vision: humor12271222GPT-5.2
LMArena Vision: captioning12671210GPT-5.2
LMArena Vision: recognizing things12321234o3
LMArena Vision: creative writing12251201GPT-5.2
LMArena Document1405Not measuredOnly GPT-5.2 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 10 boards here
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
Image generation benchmarks for GPT-5.2 and o3
BenchmarkGPT-5.2o3Leader
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$0.0088Fits in one request
o3$0.0060Fits in one request

o3 costs less

Repository review

50K input + 3K output tokens

GPT-5.2$0.130Fits in one request
o3$0.124Fits in one request

o3 costs less

Agent loop

200K input + 10K output tokens

GPT-5.2$0.490Fits in one request
o3$0.480Exceeds the context window

o3 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 and o3
SpecificationOpenAI GPT-5.2OpenAI o3
MakerOpenAIOpenAI
WeightsNo public weights listedNo public weights listed
ReleasedDecember 10, 2025April 16, 2025
Context window400K200K
Input $/Mtok$1.75$2.00
Output $/Mtok$14.00$8.00
Coding index55.9Not benchmarked
Independent measurements behind it30
Cost per solved task$1.91$0.571
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is GPT-5.2 better than o3 for coding?

Only GPT-5.2 has a coding score, 55.9 on the Vibe Coding Index; o3 has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Pick o3 for output tokens 1.8x cheaper ($8.00 vs $14.00 per million) and a lower cost per solved task ($0.571 against $1.91).

Which is cheaper, GPT-5.2 or o3?

GPT-5.2 costs $1.75 per million input tokens and $14.00 per million output tokens; o3 costs $2.00 and $8.00. Per solved SWE-bench Verified task, GPT-5.2 costs $1.91 and o3 $0.571.

Which has the bigger context window, GPT-5.2 or o3?

GPT-5.2, with 400K tokens against 200K.

How many benchmarks is the GPT-5.2 vs o3 comparison based on?

92 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 21, 2026. GPT-5.2's coding index rests on 3 independent benchmarks and o3's on 0. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.

Compare next