Skip to main content

Model comparison

GPT-4o vs GPT-5.2

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 13 shared benchmark results across 7 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

OpenAI
41.49/100
Margin
16.9pts
winning →
OpenAI
58.43/100
0 category wins1 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: GPT-4o #165 (Supported); GPT-5.2 #64 (Estimated). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. GPT-4o and GPT-5.2 share 13 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 0 results are unique to GPT-4o; 15 to GPT-5.2.

Updated July 20, 2026
Shared results
13
GPT-4o only
0
GPT-5.2 only
15
Comparable categories
1 / 8

Pick GPT-5.2 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. GPT-4o only becomes the better choice if you want the cheaper token bill or you would rather avoid the extra latency and token burn of a reasoning model.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 13 shared benchmark results across 7 evidence categories; 1 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.

Why this result

GPT-5.2 is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 58.43 to 41.49. 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 mathematics, where it averages 35.2 against 0.3. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3), 0.345% to 40.700%.

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 GPT-4o. GPT-5.2 is the reasoning model in the pair, while GPT-4o 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 128K for GPT-4o.

Category breakdown

Exact category averages are shown below. Not measured means BenchLM does not have enough sourced public coverage for that model and category.

Category scores and score margins for GPT-4o and GPT-5.2
CategoryGPT-4oΔGPT-5.2
MathGPT-4o0.3Margin 34.9GPT-5.235.2
AgenticGPT-4oNot measuredMarginNo overlapGPT-5.255.7
CodingGPT-4oNot measuredMarginNo overlapGPT-5.270.6
ReasoningGPT-4oNot measuredMarginNo overlapGPT-5.252.9
KnowledgeGPT-4oNot measuredMarginNo overlapGPT-5.292.4
MultimodalGPT-4oNot measuredMarginNo overlapGPT-5.280.4

Decisive benchmark drivers

The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.

More
A · GPT-4oB · GPT-5.2
  1. FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)

    Math
    Source ↗
    A 0.345%B 40.700%
    Winner: GPT-5.2Δ 40.4
    FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3): GPT-4o scored 0.345%; GPT-5.2 scored 40.700%. GPT-5.2 wins this benchmark.

Operational comparison

Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.

MetricGPT-4oGPT-5.2Comparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensGPT-4o$2.5 input / $10 outputGPT-5.2$1.75 input / $14 outputGPT-4o has the lower combined listed price.
Generation speedtokens per secondGPT-4o131 tok/sGPT-5.273 tok/sGPT-4o has the higher measured throughput.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenGPT-4o0.81 sGPT-5.2130.34 sGPT-4o reaches the first token sooner.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensGPT-4o128KGPT-5.2400KGPT-5.2 lists the larger context window.

Benchmark Deep Dive

Agentic
BenchmarkGPT-4oGPT-5.2Result
τ²-bench resultsSource 25.1%84.8%GPT-5.2 leads
BrowseCompSource 65.8%Not comparable
OSWorld-VerifiedSource 47.3%Not comparable
Gert LabsSource 46.54%Not comparable
JobBenchSource 34.3%Not comparable
Coding
BenchmarkGPT-4oGPT-5.2Result
AA-SciCodeSource 33.3%52.1%GPT-5.2 leads
SWE-bench VerifiedSource 80%Not comparable
SWE-bench ProSource 55.6%Not comparable
Vibe Code BenchSource 53.50%Not comparable
Reasoning
BenchmarkGPT-4oGPT-5.2Result
AA-LCRSource 0.0%72.7%GPT-5.2 leads
CritPtSource 0.0%11.6%GPT-5.2 leads
ARC-AGI-2Source 52.9%Not comparable
Knowledge
BenchmarkGPT-4oGPT-5.2Result
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource 11.2%42.2%GPT-5.2 leads
AA-GPQA DiamondSource 54.3%90.3%GPT-5.2 leads
AA-HLESource 3.3%35.4%GPT-5.2 leads
AA-Omniscience IndexSource -10.7%-1.0%GPT-5.2 leads
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource 19.7%43.8%GPT-5.2 leads
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource 37.9%79.7%GPT-4o leads
GPQASource 92.4%Not comparable
MathGPT-5.2 wins
BenchmarkGPT-4oGPT-5.2Result
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source 0.345%40.700%GPT-5.2 leads
AA AIME 2025Source 99.0%Not comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source 18.800%Not comparable
Multimodal
BenchmarkGPT-4oGPT-5.2Result
Design Arena WebsiteSource 8641227GPT-5.2 leads
MMMU-ProSource 79.5%Not comparable
MathVisionSource 83.0%Not comparable
CharXivSource 82.1%Not comparable
V*Source 75.9%Not comparable
Inst. Following
BenchmarkGPT-4oGPT-5.2Result
AA-IFBenchSource 34.3%75.4%GPT-5.2 leads
Frequently Asked Questions (2)

Which is better, GPT-4o or GPT-5.2?

GPT-5.2 is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 58.43 to 41.49. The biggest single separator in this matchup is FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3), where the scores are 0.345% and 40.700%.

Which is better for math, GPT-4o or GPT-5.2?

GPT-5.2 has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 35.2 versus 0.3. Inside this category, FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3) is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Related Comparisons

Last updated: July 20, 2026

Choose a model with this week’s evidence

Join 2,000+ readers for ranking moves, pricing changes, and the claims that still need proof.

One email each week. Unsubscribe anytime.