Compare · ModelsLive · 2 picked · head to head
Claude Opus 4.6 vs GPT-5.2
Side by side · benchmarks, pricing, and signals you can act on.
Winner summary
Claude Opus 4.6 wins on 23/30 benchmarks
Claude Opus 4.6 wins 23 of 30 shared benchmarks. Leads in agentic · reasoning · arena.
Category leads
agentic·Claude Opus 4.6reasoning·Claude Opus 4.6arena·Claude Opus 4.6knowledge·Claude Opus 4.6general·Claude Opus 4.6math·GPT-5.2coding·Claude Opus 4.6
Hype vs Reality
Attention vs performance
Claude Opus 4.6
#136 by perf·#7 by attention
GPT-5.2
#147 by perf·#4 by attention
Best value
GPT-5.2
1.9x better value than Claude Opus 4.6
Claude Opus 4.6
3.2 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
OpenAI
$840.0B·Tier 1
Head to head
30 benchmarks · 2 models
Claude Opus 4.6GPT-5.2
APEX-Agents
Claude Opus 4.6 leads by +12.0
APEX-Agents · evaluates AI agents on complex, multi-step tasks requiring planning, tool use, and autonomous decision-making in realistic environments.
Claude Opus 4.6
46.3
GPT-5.2
34.3
ARC-AGI
Claude Opus 4.6 leads by +7.8
ARC-AGI · the original Abstraction and Reasoning Corpus, testing whether AI can solve novel visual pattern recognition tasks without memorization.
Claude Opus 4.6
94.0
GPT-5.2
86.2
ARC-AGI-2
Claude Opus 4.6 leads by +16.3
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 4.6
69.2
GPT-5.2
52.9
Chatbot Arena Elo · Coding
Claude Opus 4.6 leads by +121.5
Claude Opus 4.6
1537.0
GPT-5.2
1415.5
Chatbot Arena Elo · Overall
Claude Opus 4.6 leads by +61.7
Claude Opus 4.6
1497.3
GPT-5.2
1435.6
Chess Puzzles
GPT-5.2 leads by +33.7
Chess Puzzles · tests strategic and tactical reasoning by having models solve chess puzzle positions, evaluating lookahead and pattern recognition abilities.
Claude Opus 4.6
12.7
GPT-5.2
46.3
Cl Bench
Claude Opus 4.6 leads by +2.5
Claude Opus 4.6
20.7
GPT-5.2
18.2
DeepResearch Bench
Claude Opus 4.6 leads by +14.2
DeepResearch Bench · evaluates AI on complex multi-step research tasks requiring information gathering, synthesis, and producing comprehensive analyses.
Claude Opus 4.6
55.3
GPT-5.2
41.1
Dtbench
Claude Opus 4.6 leads by +0.5
Claude Opus 4.6
85.3
GPT-5.2
84.9
Ebr Bench
GPT-5.2 leads by +10.3
Claude Opus 4.6
12.7
GPT-5.2
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.
Claude Opus 4.6
40.7
GPT-5.2
40.7
FrontierMath-Tier-4-2025-07-01-Private
Claude Opus 4.6 leads by +4.1
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 4.6
22.9
GPT-5.2
18.8
FrontierMath-Tier-4-v2-Private
GPT-5.2 leads by +4.9
Claude Opus 4.6
26.8
GPT-5.2
31.7
FrontierMath-Tiers-1-3-v2-Private
GPT-5.2 leads by +1.4
Claude Opus 4.6
66.0
GPT-5.2
67.4
Furniture Assembly
GPT-5.2 leads by +11.9
Claude Opus 4.6
0.0
GPT-5.2
11.9
GPQA diamond
GPT-5.2 leads by +1.2
Graduate-Level Google-Proof QA (Diamond set) · expert-crafted questions in physics, biology, and chemistry that are difficult even for domain PhDs.
Claude Opus 4.6
87.4
GPT-5.2
88.5
GSO-Bench
Claude Opus 4.6 leads by +13.8
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 4.6
41.2
GPT-5.2
27.4
HLE
Claude Opus 4.6 leads by +7.0
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 4.6
31.1
GPT-5.2
24.2
Lmca
Claude Opus 4.6 leads by +13.9
Claude Opus 4.6
65.6
GPT-5.2
51.7
Metr Time Horizons
Claude Opus 4.6 leads by +3.6
Claude Opus 4.6
78.9
GPT-5.2
75.3
Mystery Game Puzzles
Claude Opus 4.6 leads by +2.2
Claude Opus 4.6
17.4
GPT-5.2
15.2
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025
GPT-5.2 leads by +1.7
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 · simulated American Invitational Mathematics Examination problems testing advanced problem-solving skills.
Claude Opus 4.6
94.4
GPT-5.2
96.1
PostTrainBench
Claude Opus 4.6 leads by +3.4
Claude Opus 4.6
24.8
GPT-5.2
21.4
Proofbench
Claude Opus 4.6 leads by +35.0
Claude Opus 4.6
50.0
GPT-5.2
15.0
Remote Labor Index
Claude Opus 4.6 leads by +1.7
Claude Opus 4.6
4.2
GPT-5.2
2.5
SimpleBench
Claude Opus 4.6 leads by +26.2
SimpleBench · tests fundamental reasoning capabilities with straightforward problems designed to expose gaps in basic logical and spatial thinking.
Claude Opus 4.6
61.1
GPT-5.2
35.0
SimpleQA Verified
Claude Opus 4.6 leads by +9.9
SimpleQA Verified · short factual questions with verified answers, measuring factual accuracy and the tendency to hallucinate or provide incorrect information.
Claude Opus 4.6
47.0
GPT-5.2
37.1
SWE-Bench verified
Claude Opus 4.6 leads by +5.0
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 4.6
78.7
GPT-5.2
73.8
Terminal Bench
Claude Opus 4.6 leads by +14.9
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 4.6
79.8
GPT-5.2
64.9
WeirdML
Claude Opus 4.6 leads by +5.8
WeirdML · tests models on unusual and adversarial machine learning tasks that require creative problem-solving beyond standard patterns.
Claude Opus 4.6
78.0
GPT-5.2
72.2
Full benchmark table
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.6 | GPT-5.2 |
|---|---|---|
APEX-Agents APEX-Agents · evaluates AI agents on complex, multi-step tasks requiring planning, tool use, and autonomous decision-making in realistic environments. | 46.3 | 34.3 |
ARC-AGI ARC-AGI · the original Abstraction and Reasoning Corpus, testing whether AI can solve novel visual pattern recognition tasks without memorization. | 94.0 | 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. | 69.2 | 52.9 |
Chatbot Arena Elo · Coding | 1537.0 | 1415.5 |
Chatbot Arena Elo · Overall | 1497.3 | 1435.6 |
Chess Puzzles Chess Puzzles · tests strategic and tactical reasoning by having models solve chess puzzle positions, evaluating lookahead and pattern recognition abilities. | 12.7 | 46.3 |
Cl Bench | 20.7 | 18.2 |
DeepResearch Bench DeepResearch Bench · evaluates AI on complex multi-step research tasks requiring information gathering, synthesis, and producing comprehensive analyses. | 55.3 | 41.1 |
Dtbench | 85.3 | 84.9 |
Ebr Bench | 12.7 | 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. | 40.7 | 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. | 22.9 | 18.8 |
FrontierMath-Tier-4-v2-Private | 26.8 | 31.7 |
FrontierMath-Tiers-1-3-v2-Private | 66.0 | 67.4 |
Furniture Assembly | 0.0 | 11.9 |
GPQA diamond Graduate-Level Google-Proof QA (Diamond set) · expert-crafted questions in physics, biology, and chemistry that are difficult even for domain PhDs. | 87.4 | 88.5 |
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. | 41.2 | 27.4 |
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%. | 31.1 | 24.2 |
Lmca | 65.6 | 51.7 |
Metr Time Horizons | 78.9 | 75.3 |
Mystery Game Puzzles | 17.4 | 15.2 |
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 · simulated American Invitational Mathematics Examination problems testing advanced problem-solving skills. | 94.4 | 96.1 |
PostTrainBench | 24.8 | 21.4 |
Proofbench | 50.0 | 15.0 |
Remote Labor Index | 4.2 | 2.5 |
SimpleBench SimpleBench · tests fundamental reasoning capabilities with straightforward problems designed to expose gaps in basic logical and spatial thinking. | 61.1 | 35.0 |
SimpleQA Verified SimpleQA Verified · short factual questions with verified answers, measuring factual accuracy and the tendency to hallucinate or provide incorrect information. | 47.0 | 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. | 78.7 | 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. | 79.8 | 64.9 |
WeirdML WeirdML · tests models on unusual and adversarial machine learning tasks that require creative problem-solving beyond standard patterns. | 78.0 | 72.2 |
Pricing · per 1M tokens · projected $/mo at 10M tokens
| Model | Input | Output | Context | Projected $/mo |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| $5.00 | $25.00 | 1.0M tokens (~500 books) | $100.00 | |
| $1.75 | $14.00 | 400K tokens (~200 books) | $48.13 |