Model comparison
GPT-5.2 vs Llama 4 Maverick
Head-to-head evidence from 13 shared benchmark results across 7 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: GPT-5.2 #64 (Estimated); Llama 4 Maverick #191 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. GPT-5.2 and Llama 4 Maverick share 13 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 15 results are unique to GPT-5.2; 5 to Llama 4 Maverick.
Updated July 20, 2026- Shared results
- 13
- GPT-5.2 only
- 15
- Llama 4 Maverick only
- 5
- Comparable categories
- 1 / 8
Pick GPT-5.2 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Llama 4 Maverick only becomes the better choice if you want the cheaper token bill or you need the larger 1M context window.
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 23.49. 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 0.7. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3), 40.700% to 0.690%.
GPT-5.2 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $1.75 input / $14.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.00 input / $0.00 output per 1M tokens for Llama 4 Maverick. That is roughly Infinityx on output cost alone. GPT-5.2 is the reasoning model in the pair, while Llama 4 Maverick 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. Llama 4 Maverick gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 400K for GPT-5.2.
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 | GPT-5.2 | Δ | Llama 4 Maverick |
|---|---|---|---|
| Math | GPT-5.235.2 | Margin← 34.5 | Llama 4 Maverick0.7 |
| Agentic | GPT-5.255.7 | MarginNo overlap | Llama 4 MaverickNot measured |
| Coding | GPT-5.270.6 | MarginNo overlap | Llama 4 MaverickNot measured |
| Reasoning | GPT-5.252.9 | MarginNo overlap | Llama 4 MaverickNot measured |
| Knowledge | GPT-5.292.4 | MarginNo overlap | Llama 4 MaverickNot measured |
| Multimodal | GPT-5.280.4 | MarginNo overlap | Llama 4 MaverickNot measured |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)
MathA 40.700%B 0.690%Winner: GPT-5.2Δ 40FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3): GPT-5.2 scored 40.700%; Llama 4 Maverick scored 0.690%. GPT-5.2 wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | GPT-5.2 | Llama 4 Maverick | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | GPT-5.2$1.75 input / $14 output | Llama 4 Maverick$0 input / $0 output | Llama 4 Maverick has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | GPT-5.273 tok/s | Llama 4 Maverick121 tok/s | Llama 4 Maverick has the higher measured throughput. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | GPT-5.2130.34 s | Llama 4 Maverick0.95 s | Llama 4 Maverick reaches the first token sooner. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | GPT-5.2400K | Llama 4 Maverick1M | Llama 4 Maverick lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic8 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GPT-5.2 | Llama 4 Maverick | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| BrowseCompSource | 65.8% | — | Not comparable |
| OSWorld-VerifiedSource | 47.3% | — | Not comparable |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | 84.8% | 17.8% | GPT-5.2 leads |
| Gert LabsSource | 46.54% | — | Not comparable |
| JobBenchSource | 34.3% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | — | 1.3% | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | — | 0.0% | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | — | -16 | Not comparable |
Coding5 benchmarks
Reasoning3 benchmarks
Knowledge7 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GPT-5.2 | Llama 4 Maverick | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQASource | 92.4% | — | Not comparable |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 42.2% | 14.3% | GPT-5.2 leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 90.3% | 67.1% | GPT-5.2 leads |
| AA-HLESource | 35.4% | 4.8% | GPT-5.2 leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | -1.0% | -41.8% | GPT-5.2 leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 43.8% | 24.3% | GPT-5.2 leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 79.7% | 87.3% | GPT-5.2 leads |
MathGPT-5.2 wins3 benchmarks
Multimodal6 benchmarks
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GPT-5.2 | Llama 4 Maverick | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | 75.4% | 43.0% | GPT-5.2 leads |
Frequently Asked Questions (2)
Which is better, GPT-5.2 or Llama 4 Maverick?
GPT-5.2 is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 58.43 to 23.49. The biggest single separator in this matchup is FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3), where the scores are 40.700% and 0.690%.
Which is better for math, GPT-5.2 or Llama 4 Maverick?
GPT-5.2 has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 35.2 versus 0.7. Inside this category, FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3) is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Self-host vs API cost
Estimates at 50,000 req/day · 1000 tokens/req average.
Related Comparisons
Explore More
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.