Side-by-side benchmark comparison across agentic, coding, multimodal, knowledge, reasoning, and math workflows.
GPT-5.2 Pro is clearly ahead on the aggregate, 90 to 85. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
GPT-5.2 Pro's sharpest advantage is in coding, where it averages 84.8 against 75.1. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is SWE-bench Pro, 89 to 74. Claude Opus 4.6 does hit back in multilingual, so the answer changes if that is the part of the workload you care about most.
GPT-5.2 Pro is also the more expensive model on tokens at $25.00 input / $150.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $15.00 input / $75.00 output per 1M tokens for Claude Opus 4.6. That is roughly 2.0x on output cost alone. GPT-5.2 Pro is the reasoning model in the pair, while Claude Opus 4.6 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. Claude Opus 4.6 gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 400K for GPT-5.2 Pro.
Pick GPT-5.2 Pro if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Claude Opus 4.6 only becomes the better choice if multilingual is the priority or you want the cheaper token bill.
GPT-5.2 Pro
85.9
Claude Opus 4.6
79.2
GPT-5.2 Pro
84.8
Claude Opus 4.6
75.1
GPT-5.2 Pro
96
Claude Opus 4.6
94.6
GPT-5.2 Pro
95.2
Claude Opus 4.6
93.1
GPT-5.2 Pro
81.5
Claude Opus 4.6
78.9
GPT-5.2 Pro
95
Claude Opus 4.6
95
GPT-5.2 Pro
93.4
Claude Opus 4.6
94.7
GPT-5.2 Pro
98.2
Claude Opus 4.6
97.2
GPT-5.2 Pro is ahead overall, 90 to 85. The biggest single separator in this matchup is SWE-bench Pro, where the scores are 89 and 74.
GPT-5.2 Pro has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 81.5 versus 78.9. Inside this category, HLE is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
GPT-5.2 Pro has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 84.8 versus 75.1. Inside this category, SWE-bench Pro is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
GPT-5.2 Pro has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 98.2 versus 97.2. Inside this category, AIME 2025 is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
GPT-5.2 Pro has the edge for reasoning in this comparison, averaging 95.2 versus 93.1. Inside this category, BBH is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
GPT-5.2 Pro has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 85.9 versus 79.2. Inside this category, Terminal-Bench 2.0 is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
GPT-5.2 Pro has the edge for multimodal and grounded tasks in this comparison, averaging 96 versus 94.6. Inside this category, OfficeQA Pro is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
GPT-5.2 Pro and Claude Opus 4.6 are effectively tied for instruction following here, both landing at 95 on average.
Claude Opus 4.6 has the edge for multilingual tasks in this comparison, averaging 94.7 versus 93.4. Inside this category, MMLU-ProX is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Get notified when new models drop, benchmark scores change, or the leaderboard shifts. One email per week.
Free. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime. We only store derived location metadata for consent routing.