Updated October 29, 2026. Rank says GPT-5.2 is ahead. Price, access, and your workload can each overturn that. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty.
GPT-5.2 has the higher public score estimate, 59.41 versus 52.98, but the 90% score intervals overlap. Treat that as a lead, not a settled winner. 8 results are shared. Category rows resting on Estimated evidence or different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.
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.
Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks
GPT-5.2
GPT-5.2 has the higher public coding point estimate, 37 to 35.3, with Supported evidence for both models. The conditional ranges do not establish rank confidence.
Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion
GPT-5.2
GPT-5.2 has the higher public agentic point estimate, 45.5 to 36.4, with Supported evidence for both models. The conditional ranges do not establish rank confidence.
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
GPT-5.4 mini
GPT-5.4 mini has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
GPT-5.4 mini
GPT-5.4 mini has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. GPT-5.2 has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
GPT-5.4 mini
GPT-5.4 mini has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Prompts that approach the documented context limit
No clear pick
The documented context windows are equal.
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.
Like-for-like · 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.
Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results present for only one model describe coverage, not superiority.
2 categories rest on Estimated evidence or different evidence sets. Those rows remain visible for coverage context but do not name a winner.
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.
ARC-AGI-2Reasoning
Normalized gap 34.0OSWorld-VerifiedAgentic
Normalized gap 24.8FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Math
Normalized gap 21.9FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Math
Normalized gap 16.2GPQAKnowledge
Normalized gap 4.4Each 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.
| Category | GPT-5.2 | GPT-5.4 mini | Basis | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agentic | 45.5Supported · #63/135 | 36.4Supported · #84/135 | Like-for-likeBenchAlign v5.8 lane · 4 vs 6 public rows | GPT-5.2 leads · intervals overlap |
| Coding | 37.0Supported · #76/156 | 35.3Supported · #80/156 | Like-for-likeBenchAlign v5.8 lane · 3 vs 5 public rows | GPT-5.2 leads · intervals overlap |
| Knowledge | 59.1Supported · #50/179 | 50.5Supported · #77/179 | Like-for-likeBenchAlign v5.8 lane · 1 vs 5 public rows | GPT-5.2 leads · intervals overlap |
| Multimodal | 75.5#25/58 | 74.0#29/58 | Directional onlyProvisional lane · 2 vs 1 weighted rows | Directional only |
| Instruction following | 92.6#20/157 | 89.9#30/157 | Directional onlyProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Directional only |
| Reasoning | 64.3Unranked · 4 rankable rows | 43.7Unranked · 4 rankable rows | Not comparableProvisional lane · 1 vs 1 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Multilingual | Not ranked | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Math | 71.1Unranked · 3 rankable rows | 55.9Unranked · 2 rankable rows | Not comparableProvisional lane · 2 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.
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.
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
GPT-5.4 mini has the lower modeled cost
Costs use the listed standard API rates.
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
GPT-5.4 mini has the lower modeled cost
Costs use the listed standard API rates.
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
GPT-5.4 mini has the lower modeled cost
GPT-5.2 has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.
Sourced differences are shown directly. Missing facts stay explicit instead of being inferred from a model name or family.
Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.
GPT-5.2
400K
GPT-5.4 mini
GPT-5.2
Not sourced
GPT-5.4 mini
gpt-5.4-mini
OpenAI GPT-5.4 mini model documentationA missing cached-input rate falls back to the listed input rate only in the stated workload estimate.
GPT-5.2
Not published
GPT-5.4 mini
$0.075 per 1M cached input tokens
OpenAI pricingGPT-5.2
Not sourced
GPT-5.4 mini
text, image
OpenAI model catalogGPT-5.2
Not sourced
GPT-5.4 mini
GPT-5.2
Not sourced
GPT-5.4 mini
Generally Available · OpenAI Responses API
OpenAI model catalogGPT-5.2
Reasoning
GPT-5.4 mini
Reasoning
GPT-5.2
Proprietary
GPT-5.4 mini
Proprietary
GPT-5.2
Proprietary
GPT-5.4 mini
Proprietary
GPT-5.2
2025-12-11
GPT-5.4 mini
2026-03-17
GPT-5.2 has the higher public score estimate, 59.41 versus 52.98, but the 90% score intervals overlap. The higher estimate is not a decisive winner because the uncertainty ranges overlap.
GPT-5.2 has the higher public coding point estimate, 37 to 35.3, with Supported evidence for both models. The conditional ranges do not establish rank confidence.
GPT-5.2 has the higher public agentic tasks point estimate, 45.5 to 36.4, with Supported evidence for both models. The conditional ranges do not establish rank confidence.
For the stated presets, chat costs $0.00875 on GPT-5.2 and $0.003 on GPT-5.4 mini; repository review costs $0.1295 and $0.051; the cache-heavy agent loop costs $0.525 and $0.075. GPT-5.2 has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.
Both models list the same context window, 400K.
The full public result ledger is available for audit without forcing a wide desktop table onto a phone.
BrowseComp
Not directly comparable
OSWorld-Verified
GPT-5.4 mini leads this result
Gert Labs
Not directly comparable
JobBench
Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Not directly comparable
MCP Atlas
Not directly comparable
Toolathlon
Not directly comparable
τ²-bench results
Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals)
Not directly comparable
SWE-bench Verified
Not directly comparable
SWE-bench Pro
Not directly comparable
Vibe Code Bench
Shared sourceGPT-5.2 leads this result
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Not directly comparable
FrontierCode 1.1 Main
Not directly comparable
LiveCodeBench (Vals)
Not directly comparable
SWE-bench (Vals)
Not directly comparable
ARC-AGI-2
GPT-5.2 leads this result
ARC-AGI-1
Shared sourceGPT-5.2 leads this result
MMMU
Not directly comparable
MMMU-Pro
GPT-5.2 leads this result
RealWorldQA
Not directly comparable
OmniDocBench 1.5
Not directly comparable
Video-MME (with subtitle)
Not directly comparable
Video-MME (w/o subtitle)
Not directly comparable
MathVision
Not directly comparable
We-Math
Not directly comparable
DynaMath
Not directly comparable
SimpleVQA
Not directly comparable
CC-OCR
Not directly comparable
AI2D_TEST
Not directly comparable
CountBench
Not directly comparable
ERQA
Not directly comparable
VideoMMMU
Not directly comparable
MLVU (M-Avg)
Not directly comparable
CharXiv
Not directly comparable
V*
Not directly comparable
MMMU-Pro w/ Python
Not directly comparable
GPQA
GPT-5.2 leads this result
HLE
Not directly comparable
HLE w/o tools
Not directly comparable
GPQA Diamond (Vals)
Not directly comparable
MMLU-Pro (Vals)
Not directly comparable
AIME 2025
Not directly comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)
Shared sourceGPT-5.2 leads this result
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)
Shared sourceGPT-5.2 leads this result
One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.
Read a sample issueJoin 6,100+ subscribers.
Last updated October 29, 2026
