Head-to-head comparison across 1benchmark categories. Overall scores shown here use BenchLM's provisional ranking lane.
Command A+
32
GPT-5.2
80
Pick GPT-5.2 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Command A+ only becomes the better choice if you want the cheaper token bill.
Multimodal
+20.5 difference
Command A+
GPT-5.2
$2.5 / $10
$1.75 / $14
272 t/s
73 t/s
0.25s
130.34s
128K
400K
Pick GPT-5.2 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Command A+ only becomes the better choice if you want the cheaper token bill.
GPT-5.2 is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 80 to 32. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
GPT-5.2's sharpest advantage is in multimodal & grounded, where it averages 80.3 against 59.8. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is CharXiv, 52.7% to 82.1%.
GPT-5.2 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $1.75 input / $14.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $2.50 input / $10.00 output per 1M tokens for Command A+. GPT-5.2 gives you the larger context window at 400K, compared with 128K for Command A+.
GPT-5.2 is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 80 to 32. The biggest single separator in this matchup is CharXiv, where the scores are 52.7% and 82.1%.
GPT-5.2 has the edge for multimodal and grounded tasks in this comparison, averaging 80.3 versus 59.8. Inside this category, CharXiv 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.