Head-to-head comparison across 1benchmark categories. Overall scores shown here use BenchLM's provisional ranking lane.
Claude Haiku 4.5
56
GPT-5.2
79
Pick GPT-5.2 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Claude Haiku 4.5 only becomes the better choice if coding is the priority or you want the cheaper token bill.
Coding
+8.6 difference
Claude Haiku 4.5
GPT-5.2
$1 / $5
$1.75 / $14
N/A
73 t/s
N/A
130.34s
200K
400K
Pick GPT-5.2 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Claude Haiku 4.5 only becomes the better choice if coding is the priority or you want the cheaper token bill.
GPT-5.2 is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 79 to 56. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
GPT-5.2 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $1.75 input / $14.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $1.00 input / $5.00 output per 1M tokens for Claude Haiku 4.5. That is roughly 2.8x on output cost alone. GPT-5.2 is the reasoning model in the pair, while Claude Haiku 4.5 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 Haiku 4.5.
GPT-5.2 is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 79 to 56. The biggest single separator in this matchup is SWE-bench Verified, where the scores are 73.3% and 80%.
Claude Haiku 4.5 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 73.3 versus 64.7. Inside this category, SWE-bench Verified 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.