Long documents
Prompts that approach the documented context limit
GPT-5.2
GPT-5.2 has the larger documented context window.
Confidence: documented
Command A+ vs GPT-5.2
Updated October 2, 2026. Rank says GPT-5.2 is ahead. Price, access, and your workload can each overturn that. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty.
Both of these models will change. Get the price, version and retirement notices for the pair, each with its source. Follow model changes
Share or export
Decision reading
GPT-5.2 has the higher public point estimate, 61.94 versus 36.58. Their conditional score ranges do not overlap. These ranges do not establish rank confidence. 2 results are shared. Category rows resting on Estimated evidence or different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.
- Shared results
- 2
- Command A+ only
- 3
- GPT-5.2 only
- 13
- Like-for-like categories
- 1 / 8
Estimated: Command A+ · Supported: GPT-5.2. Conditional ranges do not establish rank confidence.How the comparison works
Which one for your work
Recommendations appear only when a shared evidence basis or an explicit operating constraint supports the call. Secondary and unsupported use cases stay disclosed below the initial list.
Chat turn cost
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
Command A+
Command A+ has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Confidence: listed-rates
Show secondary and unsupported calls
Repository review cost
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
GPT-5.2
GPT-5.2 has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Confidence: listed-ratesCoding work
Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks
Not enough matched evidence
Command A+ is scored on Estimated evidence for coding, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like.
Confidence: limitedAgentic work
Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion
Not enough matched evidence
Command A+ is scored on Estimated evidence for agentic, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like.
Confidence: limitedCache-heavy agent loop cost
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
Not enough matched evidence
The page does not recommend a cost winner because at least one model cannot fit the stated workload in one request. Command A+ does not fit this workload in one request. Command A+ has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate. GPT-5.2 has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.
Confidence: rate-fallback
Which one for a specific job
Choose a job from the LLM Selector's task catalog to see the category row it rests on, under the same basis rules as the table below. A directional row stays directional; choosing a job never creates a winner.
The same task catalog as the LLM Selector. Each job names the evidence surface it rests on; nothing here adds a new score.
23.3Command A+39.6GPT-5.2
Directional only · BenchAlign v5.8
GPT-5.2 has the higher coding point estimate. Conditional score ranges do not establish rank confidence.
Coding scores combine specific tasks and setups. Match the editor, harness, and effort to your workflow.
Same basis rules as the category table below
What is actually comparable
Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results present for only one model describe coverage, not superiority.
3 Command A+ only
2 Shared
13 GPT-5.2 only
4 categories rest on Estimated evidence or different evidence sets. Those rows remain visible for coverage context but do not name a winner.
Shape of the matched evidence
Only shared public evidence is shown. Sparse evidence stays a ruled list rather than being closed into a radar shape.
Too few matched category axes support a radar. The ruled list below shows only shared benchmark results; positions use each benchmark’s normalized display scale when available.
CharXivMultimodal
Normalized gap 29.4Command A+:52.7%GPT-5.2:82.1%MMMU-ProMultimodal
Normalized gap 16.5Command A+:63%GPT-5.2:79.5%
Bars run 0–100 on each benchmark’s normalized display scale
Category results, on a stated basis
Each row shows the public-lane category score for both models: the BenchAlign v5.8 lane for agentic, coding, and knowledge, and the weighted public rows elsewhere, with the same rank each model page reports. A row is like-for-like only when both scores rest on Supported evidence or the same weighted set. Directional and not-comparable rows remain visible, but they never receive a winner.
Multimodal
Like-for-like- Command A+
- 16.1
- #48/49
- GPT-5.2
- 67.3
- #22/49
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 2 vs 2 weighted rows
- Reading
- GPT-5.2 leads
Agentic
Directional only- Command A+
- 15.9
- Estimated · #102/119
- GPT-5.2
- 42.8
- Supported · #55/119
- Basis
- BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 2 vs 4 public rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Coding
Directional only- Command A+
- 23.3
- Estimated · #112/144
- GPT-5.2
- 39.6
- Supported · #67/144
- Basis
- BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 0 vs 3 public rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Knowledge
Directional only- Command A+
- 27.7
- Estimated · #145/171
- GPT-5.2
- 57.8
- Supported · #47/171
- Basis
- BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 0 vs 1 public rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Instruction following
Directional only- Command A+
- 89.2
- #20/125
- GPT-5.2
- 91.2
- #15/125
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Reasoning
Not comparable- Command A+
- 58.5
- Unranked · 2 rankable rows
- GPT-5.2
- 60.7
- Unranked · 3 rankable rows
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multilingual
Not comparable- Command A+
- Not ranked
- GPT-5.2
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Math
Not comparable- Command A+
- Not ranked
- GPT-5.2
- 57.4
- Unranked · 2 rankable rows
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 2 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
| Category | Command A+ | GPT-5.2 | Basis | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Multimodal | 16.1#48/49 | 67.3#22/49 | Like-for-likeProvisional lane · 2 vs 2 weighted rows | GPT-5.2 leads |
| Agentic | 15.9Estimated · #102/119 | 42.8Supported · #55/119 | Directional onlyBenchAlign v5.8 lane · 2 vs 4 public rows | Directional only |
| Coding | 23.3Estimated · #112/144 | 39.6Supported · #67/144 | Directional onlyBenchAlign v5.8 lane · 0 vs 3 public rows | Directional only |
| Knowledge | 27.7Estimated · #145/171 | 57.8Supported · #47/171 | Directional onlyBenchAlign v5.8 lane · 0 vs 1 public rows | Directional only |
| Instruction following | 89.2#20/125 | 91.2#15/125 | Directional onlyProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Directional only |
| Reasoning | 58.5Unranked · 2 rankable rows | 60.7Unranked · 3 rankable rows | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Multilingual | Not ranked | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Math | Not ranked | 57.4Unranked · 2 rankable rows | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 2 weighted rows | Not comparable |
Ranks count the models scored in each category’s lane, so the agentic, coding, and knowledge denominators (BenchAlign v5.8) differ from the provisional-lane categories. Unranked scores sit on the provisional lane’s scale but never name a winner. Like-for-like rows within 0.5 points read as a practical tie.
Supported evidence per lane · bars run 0–100Methodology
What each workload costs
Three fixed token mixes turn per-token rates into comparable decisions. Each scenario states context fit and whether cached input had to fall back to the published list-input rate.
Chat turn
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
- Command A+
- $0.0075
- Fits in one request
- GPT-5.2
- $0.00875
- Fits in one request
Command A+ has the lower modeled cost
Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Repository review
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
- Command A+
- $0.155
- Fits in one request
- GPT-5.2
- $0.1295
- Fits in one request
GPT-5.2 has the lower modeled cost
Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Cache-heavy agent loop
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
- Command A+
- $0.65
- Does not fit in one request
- Cached input priced at the published list-input rate
- GPT-5.2
- $0.525
- Fits in one request
- Cached input priced at the published list-input rate
Command A+ does not fit this workload in one request. Command A+ has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate. GPT-5.2 has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.
Cached input falls back to the list input rate only where a cached rate is unpublished
Specification differences
Sourced differences are shown directly. Missing facts stay explicit instead of being inferred from a model name or family.
SpecificationCommand A+GPT-5.2
Context window
Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.
Command A+
128K
GPT-5.2
400K
API model ID
Command A+
Not sourced
GPT-5.2
Not sourced
Cached-input rate
A missing cached-input rate falls back to the listed input rate only in the stated workload estimate.
Command A+
Not published
GPT-5.2
Not published
Documented inputs
Command A+
Not sourced
GPT-5.2
Not sourced
Documented outputs
Command A+
Not sourced
GPT-5.2
Not sourced
Provider availability
Command A+
Not sourced
GPT-5.2
Not sourced
Reasoning profile
Command A+
Reasoning
GPT-5.2
Reasoning
Weight access
Command A+
Open Weight
GPT-5.2
Proprietary
License
Command A+
Open Weight
GPT-5.2
Proprietary
Release date
Command A+
2026-05-20
GPT-5.2
2025-12-11
If you already use one of these models
- Deployment change
- The models list different providers, so authentication, endpoint behavior, limits, and feature support may change.
- Quality signal
- GPT-5.2 has the higher public point estimate, 61.94 versus 36.58. Their conditional score ranges do not overlap. These ranges do not establish rank confidence.
- Workload cost
- Repository review: $0.155 vs $0.1295. Cache-heavy agent loop: $0.65 vs $0.525.
- Context tradeoff
- GPT-5.2 has the larger documented window (400K).
Run the same representative tasks against both endpoints before changing production traffic.
Questions
Which is better, Command A+ or GPT-5.2?
GPT-5.2 has the higher public point estimate, 61.94 versus 36.58. Their conditional score ranges do not overlap. These ranges do not establish rank confidence. The page therefore keeps the decision tied to the specific documented workload.
Which is better for coding, Command A+ or GPT-5.2?
GPT-5.2 scores higher for coding on the public lane, 39.6 to 23.3. Command A+ is scored on Estimated evidence for coding, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like. BenchLM does not name a winner for coding from a directional reading; read the shared benchmark rows directly and test the models on the same task set.
Which is better for agentic tasks, Command A+ or GPT-5.2?
GPT-5.2 scores higher for agentic tasks on the public lane, 42.8 to 15.9. Command A+ is scored on Estimated evidence for agentic tasks, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like. BenchLM does not name a winner for agentic tasks from a directional reading; read the shared benchmark rows directly and test the models on the same task set.
Which costs less, Command A+ or GPT-5.2?
For the stated presets, chat costs $0.0075 on Command A+ and $0.00875 on GPT-5.2; repository review costs $0.155 and $0.1295; the cache-heavy agent loop costs $0.65 and $0.525. Command A+ does not fit this workload in one request. Command A+ has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate. GPT-5.2 has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.
Which has the larger context window, Command A+ or GPT-5.2?
GPT-5.2 has the larger documented context window: 400K, compared with 128K.
Benchmark evidence
The full public result ledger is available for audit without forcing a wide desktop table onto a phone.
Browse raw public benchmark evidence18 rows
Agentic
τ²-bench results
Command A+85%SourceGPT-5.2—Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals)
Command A+17.6%SourceGPT-5.2—Not directly comparable
BrowseComp
Command A+—GPT-5.265.8%SourceNot directly comparable
OSWorld-Verified
Command A+—GPT-5.247.3%SourceNot directly comparable
Gert Labs
Command A+—GPT-5.246.54%SourceNot directly comparable
JobBench
Command A+—GPT-5.234.3%SourceNot directly comparable
Coding
Reasoning
ARC-AGI-2
Command A+—GPT-5.252.9%SourceNot directly comparable
Multimodal
MMMU
Command A+75.1%SourceGPT-5.2—Not directly comparable
MMMU-Pro
Command A+63%SourceGPT-5.279.5%SourceGPT-5.2 leads this result
CharXiv
Command A+52.7%SourceGPT-5.282.1%SourceGPT-5.2 leads this result
MathVision
Command A+—GPT-5.283.0%SourceNot directly comparable
V*
Command A+—GPT-5.275.9%SourceNot directly comparable
Knowledge
GPQA
Command A+—GPT-5.292.4%SourceNot directly comparable
Math
18 public results · 2 shared
Watch Command A+ vs GPT-5.2
One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.
Read a sample issueJoin 2,000+ readers.
Last updated October 2, 2026