Compare · ModelsLive · 2 picked · head to head
GPT-5.2 vs Claude Opus 4.5
Side by side · benchmarks, pricing, and signals you can act on.
Winner summary
GPT-5.2 wins on 14/20 benchmarks
GPT-5.2 wins 14 of 20 shared benchmarks. Leads in agentic · reasoning · knowledge.
Category leads
agentic·GPT-5.2reasoning·GPT-5.2arena·Claude Opus 4.5knowledge·GPT-5.2math·GPT-5.2coding·GPT-5.2
Hype vs Reality
Attention vs performance
GPT-5.2
#76 by perf·no signal
Claude Opus 4.5
#113 by perf·no signal
Best value
GPT-5.2
2.3x better value than Claude Opus 4.5
GPT-5.2
6.9 pts/$
$7.88/M
Claude Opus 4.5
3.0 pts/$
$15.00/M
Vendor risk
Who is behind the model
OpenAI
$840.0B·Tier 1
Anthropic
$380.0B·Tier 1
Head to head
20 benchmarks · 2 models
GPT-5.2Claude Opus 4.5
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.
GPT-5.2
34.3
Claude Opus 4.5
18.4
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.
GPT-5.2
86.2
Claude Opus 4.5
80.0
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.
GPT-5.2
52.9
Claude Opus 4.5
37.6
Chatbot Arena Elo · Coding
Claude Opus 4.5 leads by +62.1
GPT-5.2
1403.1
Claude Opus 4.5
1465.2
Chatbot Arena Elo · Overall
Claude Opus 4.5 leads by +28.2
GPT-5.2
1439.5
Claude Opus 4.5
1467.7
Chess Puzzles
GPT-5.2 leads by +37.0
Chess Puzzles · tests strategic and tactical reasoning by having models solve chess puzzle positions, evaluating lookahead and pattern recognition abilities.
GPT-5.2
49.0
Claude Opus 4.5
12.0
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.
GPT-5.2
40.7
Claude Opus 4.5
20.7
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.
GPT-5.2
18.8
Claude Opus 4.5
4.2
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.
GPT-5.2
88.5
Claude Opus 4.5
81.4
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.
GPT-5.2
27.4
Claude Opus 4.5
26.5
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%.
GPT-5.2
24.2
Claude Opus 4.5
21.4
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.
GPT-5.2
96.1
Claude Opus 4.5
86.1
PostTrainBench
GPT-5.2 leads by +4.1
GPT-5.2
21.4
Claude Opus 4.5
17.3
SimpleBench
Claude Opus 4.5 leads by +19.4
SimpleBench · tests fundamental reasoning capabilities with straightforward problems designed to expose gaps in basic logical and spatial thinking.
GPT-5.2
35.0
Claude Opus 4.5
54.4
SimpleQA Verified
Claude Opus 4.5 leads by +2.9
SimpleQA Verified · short factual questions with verified answers, measuring factual accuracy and the tendency to hallucinate or provide incorrect information.
GPT-5.2
38.9
Claude Opus 4.5
41.8
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.
GPT-5.2
73.8
Claude Opus 4.5
76.7
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.
GPT-5.2
71.8
Claude Opus 4.5
74.4
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.
GPT-5.2
64.9
Claude Opus 4.5
63.1
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.
GPT-5.2
76.0
Claude Opus 4.5
10.0
WeirdML
GPT-5.2 leads by +8.5
WeirdML · tests models on unusual and adversarial machine learning tasks that require creative problem-solving beyond standard patterns.
GPT-5.2
72.2
Claude Opus 4.5
63.7
Full benchmark table
| Benchmark | GPT-5.2 | Claude Opus 4.5 |
|---|---|---|
APEX-Agents APEX-Agents · evaluates AI agents on complex, multi-step tasks requiring planning, tool use, and autonomous decision-making in realistic environments. | 34.3 | 18.4 |
ARC-AGI ARC-AGI · the original Abstraction and Reasoning Corpus, testing whether AI can solve novel visual pattern recognition tasks without memorization. | 86.2 | 80.0 |
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. | 52.9 | 37.6 |
Chatbot Arena Elo · Coding | 1403.1 | 1465.2 |
Chatbot Arena Elo · Overall | 1439.5 | 1467.7 |
Chess Puzzles Chess Puzzles · tests strategic and tactical reasoning by having models solve chess puzzle positions, evaluating lookahead and pattern recognition abilities. | 49.0 | 12.0 |
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 | 20.7 |
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. | 18.8 | 4.2 |
GPQA diamond Graduate-Level Google-Proof QA (Diamond set) · expert-crafted questions in physics, biology, and chemistry that are difficult even for domain PhDs. | 88.5 | 81.4 |
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. | 27.4 | 26.5 |
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%. | 24.2 | 21.4 |
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 · simulated American Invitational Mathematics Examination problems testing advanced problem-solving skills. | 96.1 | 86.1 |
PostTrainBench | 21.4 | 17.3 |
SimpleBench SimpleBench · tests fundamental reasoning capabilities with straightforward problems designed to expose gaps in basic logical and spatial thinking. | 35.0 | 54.4 |
SimpleQA Verified SimpleQA Verified · short factual questions with verified answers, measuring factual accuracy and the tendency to hallucinate or provide incorrect information. | 38.9 | 41.8 |
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. | 73.8 | 76.7 |
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. | 71.8 | 74.4 |
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. | 64.9 | 63.1 |
VPCT VPCT (Visual Pattern Completion Test) · tests visual reasoning and pattern recognition by having models complete visual sequences and transformations. | 76.0 | 10.0 |
WeirdML WeirdML · tests models on unusual and adversarial machine learning tasks that require creative problem-solving beyond standard patterns. | 72.2 | 63.7 |
Pricing · per 1M tokens · projected $/mo at 10M tokens
| Model | Input | Output | Context | Projected $/mo |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| $1.75 | $14.00 | 400K tokens (~200 books) | $48.13 | |
| $5.00 | $25.00 | 200K tokens (~100 books) | $100.00 |
People also compared