Head-to-head comparison across 1benchmark categories. Overall scores shown here use BenchLM's provisional ranking lane.
Claude 4 Sonnet
50
GPT-5.2
79
Pick GPT-5.2 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Claude 4 Sonnet only becomes the better choice if coding is the priority or you would rather avoid the extra latency and token burn of a reasoning model.
Coding
+8.0 difference
Claude 4 Sonnet
GPT-5.2
$3 / $15
$1.75 / $14
40 t/s
73 t/s
1.33s
130.34s
200K
400K
Pick GPT-5.2 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Claude 4 Sonnet only becomes the better choice if coding is the priority or you would rather avoid the extra latency and token burn of a reasoning model.
GPT-5.2 is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 79 to 50. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
Claude 4 Sonnet is also the more expensive model on tokens at $3.00 input / $15.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $1.75 input / $14.00 output per 1M tokens for GPT-5.2. GPT-5.2 is the reasoning model in the pair, while Claude 4 Sonnet is not. That usually helps on harder chain-of-thought-heavy tests, but it can also mean more latency and more token spend in real use. GPT-5.2 gives you the larger context window at 400K, compared with 200K for Claude 4 Sonnet.
GPT-5.2 is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 79 to 50. The biggest single separator in this matchup is SWE-bench Verified, where the scores are 72.7% and 80%.
Claude 4 Sonnet has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 72.7 versus 64.7. Inside this category, Terminal-Bench Hard is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
For engineers, researchers, and the plain curious — a weekly brief on new models, ranking shifts, and pricing changes.
Free. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.