Compare · ModelsLive · 3 picked · head to head
Claude Opus 4.1 vs Claude Opus 4.5 vs GPT-5.2
Side by side · benchmarks, pricing, and signals you can act on.
Winner summary
GPT-5.2 wins on 22/34 benchmarks
GPT-5.2 wins 22 of 34 shared benchmarks. Leads in knowledge · general · math.
Category leads
knowledge·GPT-5.2general·GPT-5.2math·GPT-5.2reasoning·GPT-5.2coding·Claude Opus 4.5agentic·GPT-5.2arena·Claude Opus 4.5
Hype vs Reality
Attention vs performance
Claude Opus 4.1
#213 by perf·#9 by attention
Claude Opus 4.5
#179 by perf·#9 by attention
GPT-5.2
#147 by perf·#4 by attention
Best value
GPT-5.2
2.2x better value than Claude Opus 4.5
Claude Opus 4.1
0.8 pts/$
$45.00/M
Claude Opus 4.5
2.8 pts/$
$15.00/M
GPT-5.2
6.0 pts/$
$7.88/M
Vendor risk
Who is behind the model
Anthropic
$965.0B·Tier 1
Anthropic
$965.0B·Tier 1
OpenAI
$840.0B·Tier 1
Head to head
34 benchmarks · 3 models
Claude Opus 4.1Claude Opus 4.5GPT-5.2
Chess Puzzles
GPT-5.2 leads by +38.9
Chess Puzzles · tests strategic and tactical reasoning by having models solve chess puzzle positions, evaluating lookahead and pattern recognition abilities.
Claude Opus 4.1
2.1
Claude Opus 4.5
7.4
GPT-5.2
46.3
DeepResearch Bench
Claude Opus 4.5 leads by +6.5
DeepResearch Bench · evaluates AI on complex multi-step research tasks requiring information gathering, synthesis, and producing comprehensive analyses.
Claude Opus 4.1
48.3
Claude Opus 4.5
54.8
GPT-5.2
41.1
Dtbench
GPT-5.2 leads by +1.8
Claude Opus 4.1
66.7
Claude Opus 4.5
83.1
GPT-5.2
84.9
Ebr Bench
GPT-5.2 leads by +8.7
Claude Opus 4.1
7.9
Claude Opus 4.5
14.3
GPT-5.2
23.0
FrontierMath-2025-02-28-Private
GPT-5.2 leads by +20.0
FrontierMath (Feb 2025) · original research-level math problems created by mathematicians, testing capabilities at the boundary of current AI mathematical reasoning.
Claude Opus 4.1
7.2
Claude Opus 4.5
20.7
GPT-5.2
40.7
FrontierMath-Tier-4-2025-07-01-Private
GPT-5.2 leads by +14.6
FrontierMath Tier 4 (Jul 2025) · the most challenging tier of frontier mathematics, containing problems that push the absolute limits of AI mathematical reasoning.
Claude Opus 4.1
4.2
Claude Opus 4.5
4.2
GPT-5.2
18.8
FrontierMath-Tier-4-v2-Private
GPT-5.2 leads by +26.8
Claude Opus 4.1
2.4
Claude Opus 4.5
4.9
GPT-5.2
31.7
FrontierMath-Tiers-1-3-v2-Private
GPT-5.2 leads by +33.0
Claude Opus 4.1
12.6
Claude Opus 4.5
34.4
GPT-5.2
67.4
Gdpval
GPT-5.2 leads by +4.2
Claude Opus 4.1
43.6
Claude Opus 4.5
45.5
GPT-5.2
49.7
GPQA diamond
GPT-5.2 leads by +7.1
Graduate-Level Google-Proof QA (Diamond set) · expert-crafted questions in physics, biology, and chemistry that are difficult even for domain PhDs.
Claude Opus 4.1
69.7
Claude Opus 4.5
81.4
GPT-5.2
88.5
HLE
GPT-5.2 leads by +2.7
HLE (Humanity's Last Exam) · a reasoning benchmark designed to be the hardest public evaluation of AI. Questions span mathematics, physics, philosophy, and logic · curated to be at or beyond the frontier of human expert capability. Tested with and without tool augmentation. Claude Opus 4.7 scores 46.9% without tools and 54.7% with tools · making it one of the few benchmarks where the top score is below 60%.
Claude Opus 4.1
7.1
Claude Opus 4.5
21.4
GPT-5.2
24.2
Lmca
Claude Opus 4.5 leads by +0.7
Claude Opus 4.1
43.6
Claude Opus 4.5
52.3
GPT-5.2
51.7
Metr Time Horizons
GPT-5.2 leads by +0.3
Claude Opus 4.1
66.8
Claude Opus 4.5
75.0
GPT-5.2
75.3
Mystery Game Puzzles
GPT-5.2 leads by +1.1
Claude Opus 4.1
13.0
Claude Opus 4.5
14.1
GPT-5.2
15.2
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025
GPT-5.2 leads by +10.0
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 · simulated American Invitational Mathematics Examination problems testing advanced problem-solving skills.
Claude Opus 4.1
68.9
Claude Opus 4.5
86.1
GPT-5.2
96.1
SimpleBench
Claude Opus 4.5 leads by +2.4
SimpleBench · tests fundamental reasoning capabilities with straightforward problems designed to expose gaps in basic logical and spatial thinking.
Claude Opus 4.1
52.0
Claude Opus 4.5
54.4
GPT-5.2
35.0
SimpleQA Verified
Claude Opus 4.5 leads by +4.7
SimpleQA Verified · short factual questions with verified answers, measuring factual accuracy and the tendency to hallucinate or provide incorrect information.
Claude Opus 4.1
34.8
Claude Opus 4.5
41.8
GPT-5.2
37.1
SWE-Bench verified
Claude Opus 4.5 leads by +2.9
SWE-bench Verified · 500 human-validated tasks from 12 real Python repositories (Django, Flask, scikit-learn, sympy, and others). Each task requires the model to produce a git patch that resolves a real GitHub issue and passes the test suite. The verified subset eliminates ambiguous tasks from the original SWE-bench. Claude Mythos Preview leads at 93.9%, crossing 90% for the first time in 2026. Opus 4.6 scores 80.8%. The benchmark remains the most-cited evaluation for code-generation capability.
Claude Opus 4.1
73.3
Claude Opus 4.5
76.7
GPT-5.2
73.8
Terminal Bench
GPT-5.2 leads by +1.8
Terminal-Bench 2.0 · evaluates AI agents on real terminal-based coding tasks · writing scripts, debugging, running tests, and managing projects entirely through command-line interaction. Tests both code quality and terminal fluency. Claude Opus 4.7 scores 69.4%, demonstrating significant agentic terminal competence.
Claude Opus 4.1
38.0
Claude Opus 4.5
63.1
GPT-5.2
64.9
VPCT
GPT-5.2 leads by +66.0
VPCT (Visual Pattern Completion Test) · tests visual reasoning and pattern recognition by having models complete visual sequences and transformations.
Claude Opus 4.1
2.5
Claude Opus 4.5
10.0
GPT-5.2
76.0
WeirdML
GPT-5.2 leads by +8.4
WeirdML · tests models on unusual and adversarial machine learning tasks that require creative problem-solving beyond standard patterns.
Claude Opus 4.1
45.9
Claude Opus 4.5
63.7
GPT-5.2
72.2
APEX-Agents
GPT-5.2 leads by +15.9
APEX-Agents · evaluates AI agents on complex, multi-step tasks requiring planning, tool use, and autonomous decision-making in realistic environments.
Claude Opus 4.5
18.4
GPT-5.2
34.3
ARC-AGI
GPT-5.2 leads by +6.2
ARC-AGI · the original Abstraction and Reasoning Corpus, testing whether AI can solve novel visual pattern recognition tasks without memorization.
Claude Opus 4.5
80.0
GPT-5.2
86.2
ARC-AGI-2
GPT-5.2 leads by +15.3
ARC-AGI-2 · the second iteration of the Abstraction and Reasoning Corpus, testing novel pattern recognition and abstract reasoning without prior training data.
Claude Opus 4.5
37.6
GPT-5.2
52.9
Chatbot Arena Elo · Coding
Claude Opus 4.5 leads by +53.0
Claude Opus 4.5
1468.5
GPT-5.2
1415.5
Chatbot Arena Elo · Overall
Claude Opus 4.5 leads by +34.2
Claude Opus 4.5
1469.8
GPT-5.2
1435.6
Cl Bench
Claude Opus 4.5 leads by +2.9
Claude Opus 4.5
21.1
GPT-5.2
18.2
Cybench
Claude Opus 4.5 leads by +40.0
Cybench · evaluates AI on real Capture-The-Flag cybersecurity challenges, testing vulnerability analysis, exploitation, and security reasoning.
Claude Opus 4.1
42.0
Claude Opus 4.5
82.0
Furniture Assembly
GPT-5.2 leads by +11.9
Claude Opus 4.5
0.0
GPT-5.2
11.9
GSO-Bench
GPT-5.2 leads by +0.9
GSO-Bench · evaluates AI models on real-world open-source software engineering tasks, testing the ability to understand and resolve actual GitHub issues.
Claude Opus 4.5
26.5
GPT-5.2
27.4
PostTrainBench
GPT-5.2 leads by +4.1
Claude Opus 4.5
17.3
GPT-5.2
21.4
Proofbench
Claude Opus 4.5 leads by +21.0
Claude Opus 4.5
36.0
GPT-5.2
15.0
Remote Labor Index
Claude Opus 4.5 leads by +1.3
Claude Opus 4.5
3.8
GPT-5.2
2.5
SWE-Bench Verified (Bash Only)
Claude Opus 4.5 leads by +2.6
SWE-Bench Verified (Bash Only) · a curated subset of SWE-bench where models fix real Python repository bugs using only bash commands, no agent frameworks.
Claude Opus 4.5
74.4
GPT-5.2
71.8
Full benchmark table
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | Claude Opus 4.5 | GPT-5.2 |
|---|---|---|---|
Chess Puzzles Chess Puzzles · tests strategic and tactical reasoning by having models solve chess puzzle positions, evaluating lookahead and pattern recognition abilities. | 2.1 | 7.4 | 46.3 |
DeepResearch Bench DeepResearch Bench · evaluates AI on complex multi-step research tasks requiring information gathering, synthesis, and producing comprehensive analyses. | 48.3 | 54.8 | 41.1 |
Dtbench | 66.7 | 83.1 | 84.9 |
Ebr Bench | 7.9 | 14.3 | 23.0 |
FrontierMath-2025-02-28-Private FrontierMath (Feb 2025) · original research-level math problems created by mathematicians, testing capabilities at the boundary of current AI mathematical reasoning. | 7.2 | 20.7 | 40.7 |
FrontierMath-Tier-4-2025-07-01-Private FrontierMath Tier 4 (Jul 2025) · the most challenging tier of frontier mathematics, containing problems that push the absolute limits of AI mathematical reasoning. | 4.2 | 4.2 | 18.8 |
FrontierMath-Tier-4-v2-Private | 2.4 | 4.9 | 31.7 |
FrontierMath-Tiers-1-3-v2-Private | 12.6 | 34.4 | 67.4 |
Gdpval | 43.6 | 45.5 | 49.7 |
GPQA diamond Graduate-Level Google-Proof QA (Diamond set) · expert-crafted questions in physics, biology, and chemistry that are difficult even for domain PhDs. | 69.7 | 81.4 | 88.5 |
HLE HLE (Humanity's Last Exam) · a reasoning benchmark designed to be the hardest public evaluation of AI. Questions span mathematics, physics, philosophy, and logic · curated to be at or beyond the frontier of human expert capability. Tested with and without tool augmentation. Claude Opus 4.7 scores 46.9% without tools and 54.7% with tools · making it one of the few benchmarks where the top score is below 60%. | 7.1 | 21.4 | 24.2 |
Lmca | 43.6 | 52.3 | 51.7 |
Metr Time Horizons | 66.8 | 75.0 | 75.3 |
Mystery Game Puzzles | 13.0 | 14.1 | 15.2 |
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 · simulated American Invitational Mathematics Examination problems testing advanced problem-solving skills. | 68.9 | 86.1 | 96.1 |
SimpleBench SimpleBench · tests fundamental reasoning capabilities with straightforward problems designed to expose gaps in basic logical and spatial thinking. | 52.0 | 54.4 | 35.0 |
SimpleQA Verified SimpleQA Verified · short factual questions with verified answers, measuring factual accuracy and the tendency to hallucinate or provide incorrect information. | 34.8 | 41.8 | 37.1 |
SWE-Bench verified SWE-bench Verified · 500 human-validated tasks from 12 real Python repositories (Django, Flask, scikit-learn, sympy, and others). Each task requires the model to produce a git patch that resolves a real GitHub issue and passes the test suite. The verified subset eliminates ambiguous tasks from the original SWE-bench. Claude Mythos Preview leads at 93.9%, crossing 90% for the first time in 2026. Opus 4.6 scores 80.8%. The benchmark remains the most-cited evaluation for code-generation capability. | 73.3 | 76.7 | 73.8 |
Terminal Bench Terminal-Bench 2.0 · evaluates AI agents on real terminal-based coding tasks · writing scripts, debugging, running tests, and managing projects entirely through command-line interaction. Tests both code quality and terminal fluency. Claude Opus 4.7 scores 69.4%, demonstrating significant agentic terminal competence. | 38.0 | 63.1 | 64.9 |
VPCT VPCT (Visual Pattern Completion Test) · tests visual reasoning and pattern recognition by having models complete visual sequences and transformations. | 2.5 | 10.0 | 76.0 |
WeirdML WeirdML · tests models on unusual and adversarial machine learning tasks that require creative problem-solving beyond standard patterns. | 45.9 | 63.7 | 72.2 |
APEX-Agents APEX-Agents · evaluates AI agents on complex, multi-step tasks requiring planning, tool use, and autonomous decision-making in realistic environments. | — | 18.4 | 34.3 |
ARC-AGI ARC-AGI · the original Abstraction and Reasoning Corpus, testing whether AI can solve novel visual pattern recognition tasks without memorization. | — | 80.0 | 86.2 |
ARC-AGI-2 ARC-AGI-2 · the second iteration of the Abstraction and Reasoning Corpus, testing novel pattern recognition and abstract reasoning without prior training data. | — | 37.6 | 52.9 |
Chatbot Arena Elo · Coding | — | 1468.5 | 1415.5 |
Chatbot Arena Elo · Overall | — | 1469.8 | 1435.6 |
Cl Bench | — | 21.1 | 18.2 |
Cybench Cybench · evaluates AI on real Capture-The-Flag cybersecurity challenges, testing vulnerability analysis, exploitation, and security reasoning. | 42.0 | 82.0 | — |
Furniture Assembly | — | 0.0 | 11.9 |
GSO-Bench GSO-Bench · evaluates AI models on real-world open-source software engineering tasks, testing the ability to understand and resolve actual GitHub issues. | — | 26.5 | 27.4 |
PostTrainBench | — | 17.3 | 21.4 |
Proofbench | — | 36.0 | 15.0 |
Remote Labor Index | — | 3.8 | 2.5 |
SWE-Bench Verified (Bash Only) SWE-Bench Verified (Bash Only) · a curated subset of SWE-bench where models fix real Python repository bugs using only bash commands, no agent frameworks. | — | 74.4 | 71.8 |
Pricing · per 1M tokens · projected $/mo at 10M tokens
| Model | Input | Output | Context | Projected $/mo |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| $15.00 | $75.00 | 200K tokens (~100 books) | $300.00 | |
| $5.00 | $25.00 | 200K tokens (~100 books) | $100.00 | |
| $1.75 | $14.00 | 400K tokens (~200 books) | $48.13 |
People also compared