Skip to main content

Model comparison

GPT-5.2 vs LFM2.5-VL-1.6B-Extract

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 11 shared benchmark results across 5 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

OpenAI
58.43/100
No comparison
0 category wins0 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: GPT-5.2 #64 (Estimated); LFM2.5-VL-1.6B-Extract unranked (Not scored). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. GPT-5.2 and LFM2.5-VL-1.6B-Extract share 11 comparable benchmark results. 0 of 8 categories are comparable. 17 results are unique to GPT-5.2; 4 to LFM2.5-VL-1.6B-Extract.

Updated July 23, 2026
Shared results
11
GPT-5.2 only
17
LFM2.5-VL-1.6B-Extract only
4
Comparable categories
0 / 8

Benchmark data for GPT-5.2 and LFM2.5-VL-1.6B-Extract is coming soon on BenchLM.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 11 shared benchmark results across 5 evidence categories; 0 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.

Why this result

BenchLM has partial data for these models, but not enough overlapping benchmark coverage to produce a fair score-level comparison yet.

GPT-5.2 has the larger context window at 400K, compared with 128K for LFM2.5-VL-1.6B-Extract.

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-5.2 and LFM2.5-VL-1.6B-Extract
CategoryGPT-5.2ΔLFM2.5-VL-1.6B-Extract
AgenticGPT-5.255.7MarginNo overlapLFM2.5-VL-1.6B-ExtractNot measured
CodingGPT-5.270.6MarginNo overlapLFM2.5-VL-1.6B-ExtractNot measured
ReasoningGPT-5.252.9MarginNo overlapLFM2.5-VL-1.6B-ExtractNot measured
KnowledgeGPT-5.292.4MarginNo overlapLFM2.5-VL-1.6B-ExtractNot measured
MathGPT-5.235.2MarginNo overlapLFM2.5-VL-1.6B-ExtractNot measured
MultimodalGPT-5.280.4MarginNo overlapLFM2.5-VL-1.6B-ExtractNot measured

Operational comparison

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

MetricGPT-5.2LFM2.5-VL-1.6B-ExtractComparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensGPT-5.2$1.75 input / $14 outputLFM2.5-VL-1.6B-ExtractNot availableA complete price comparison is not available.
Generation speedtokens per secondGPT-5.273 tok/sLFM2.5-VL-1.6B-ExtractNot availableA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenGPT-5.2130.34 sLFM2.5-VL-1.6B-ExtractNot availableA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensGPT-5.2400KLFM2.5-VL-1.6B-Extract128KGPT-5.2 lists the larger context window.

Benchmark Deep Dive

Agentic
BenchmarkGPT-5.2LFM2.5-VL-1.6B-ExtractResult
BrowseCompSource 65.8%Not comparable
OSWorld-VerifiedSource 47.3%Not comparable
τ²-bench resultsSource 84.8%8.5%GPT-5.2 leads
Gert LabsSource 46.54%Not comparable
JobBenchSource 34.3%Not comparable
Coding
BenchmarkGPT-5.2LFM2.5-VL-1.6B-ExtractResult
SWE-bench VerifiedSource 80%Not comparable
SWE-bench ProSource 55.6%Not comparable
Vibe Code BenchSource 53.50%Not comparable
AA-SciCodeSource 52.1%3.0%GPT-5.2 leads
Reasoning
BenchmarkGPT-5.2LFM2.5-VL-1.6B-ExtractResult
ARC-AGI-2Source 52.9%Not comparable
AA-LCRSource 72.7%0.0%GPT-5.2 leads
CritPtSource 11.6%0.0%GPT-5.2 leads
Knowledge
BenchmarkGPT-5.2LFM2.5-VL-1.6B-ExtractResult
GPQASource 92.4%Not comparable
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource 42.2%1.0%GPT-5.2 leads
AA-GPQA DiamondSource 90.3%28.9%GPT-5.2 leads
AA-HLESource 35.4%5.1%GPT-5.2 leads
AA-Omniscience IndexSource -1.0%-83.9%GPT-5.2 leads
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource 43.8%5.2%GPT-5.2 leads
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource 79.7%94.0%GPT-5.2 leads
Math
BenchmarkGPT-5.2LFM2.5-VL-1.6B-ExtractResult
AA AIME 2025Source 99.0%Not comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source 40.700%Not comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source 18.800%Not comparable
Multimodal
BenchmarkGPT-5.2LFM2.5-VL-1.6B-ExtractResult
MMMU-ProSource 79.5%Not comparable
MathVisionSource 83.0%Not comparable
CharXivSource 82.1%Not comparable
V*Source 75.9%Not comparable
Design Arena WebsiteSource 1224Not comparable
Liquid Extract JSON ValiditySource 99.6%Not comparable
Liquid Extract F1Source 99.6%Not comparable
Liquid Extract VLM JudgeSource 90.6%Not comparable
AA-MMMU-ProSource 26.5%Not comparable
Inst. Following
BenchmarkGPT-5.2LFM2.5-VL-1.6B-ExtractResult
AA-IFBenchSource 75.4%33.1%GPT-5.2 leads
Frequently Asked Questions (3)

Can I compare GPT-5.2 and LFM2.5-VL-1.6B-Extract on BenchLM yet?

Not fully yet. BenchLM is tracking both models, but the sourced benchmark breakdown for this comparison is still coming soon.

Why does this comparison show “coming soon”?

BenchLM only shows category winners and benchmark-level calls when we have sourced results that can be compared fairly. For these models, the public benchmark coverage is not complete enough yet.

What data is available for GPT-5.2 and LFM2.5-VL-1.6B-Extract today?

GPT-5.2: $1.75 input / $14.00 output per 1M tokens Both model pages still include creator, context window, reasoning mode, and other metadata while benchmark coverage fills in.

Related Comparisons

Last updated: July 23, 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.