Skip to main content

Model comparison

GPT-5.2 vs o1

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 13 shared benchmark results across 6 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

OpenAI
58.43/100
Margin
10.3pts
← winning
OpenAI
48.1/100
2 category wins0 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: GPT-5.2 #64 (Estimated); o1 #129 (Estimated). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. GPT-5.2 and o1 share 13 comparable benchmark results. 2 of 8 categories are comparable. 15 results are unique to GPT-5.2; 3 to o1.

Updated July 22, 2026
Shared results
13
GPT-5.2 only
15
o1 only
3
Comparable categories
2 / 8

Pick GPT-5.2 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. o1 only becomes the better choice if its workflow or ecosystem matters more than the raw scoreboard.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 13 shared benchmark results across 6 evidence categories; 2 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 48.1. 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 9.3. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3), 40.700% to 9.310%.

o1 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $15.00 input / $60.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $1.75 input / $14.00 output per 1M tokens for GPT-5.2. That is roughly 4.3x on output cost alone. GPT-5.2 gives you the larger context window at 400K, compared with 200K for o1.

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 o1
CategoryGPT-5.2Δo1
MathGPT-5.235.2Margin 25.9o19.3
KnowledgeGPT-5.292.4Margin 16.7o175.7
AgenticGPT-5.255.7MarginNo overlapo1Not measured
CodingGPT-5.270.6MarginNo overlapo1Not measured
ReasoningGPT-5.252.9MarginNo overlapo1Not measured
MultimodalGPT-5.280.4MarginNo overlapo1Not measured
Inst. FollowingGPT-5.2Not measuredMarginNo overlapo192.2

Decisive benchmark drivers

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

More
A · GPT-5.2B · o1
  1. FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)

    Math
    Source ↗
    A 40.700%B 9.310%
    Winner: GPT-5.2Δ 31.4
    FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3): GPT-5.2 scored 40.700%; o1 scored 9.310%. GPT-5.2 wins this benchmark.
  2. GPQA

    Knowledge
    Source ↗
    A 92.4%B 75.7%
    Winner: GPT-5.2Δ 16.7
    GPQA: GPT-5.2 scored 92.4%; o1 scored 75.7%. GPT-5.2 wins this benchmark.

Operational comparison

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

MetricGPT-5.2o1Comparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensGPT-5.2$1.75 input / $14 outputo1$15 input / $60 outputGPT-5.2 has the lower combined listed price.
Generation speedtokens per secondGPT-5.273 tok/so198 tok/so1 has the higher measured throughput.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenGPT-5.2130.34 so132.29 so1 reaches the first token sooner.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensGPT-5.2400Ko1200KGPT-5.2 lists the larger context window.

Benchmark Deep Dive

Agentic
BenchmarkGPT-5.2o1Result
BrowseCompSource 65.8%Not comparable
OSWorld-VerifiedSource 47.3%Not comparable
τ²-bench resultsSource 84.8%62.6%GPT-5.2 leads
Gert LabsSource 46.54%Not comparable
JobBenchSource 34.3%Not comparable
Coding
BenchmarkGPT-5.2o1Result
SWE-bench VerifiedSource 80%Not comparable
SWE-bench ProSource 55.6%Not comparable
Vibe Code BenchSource 53.50%Not comparable
AA-SciCodeSource 52.1%35.8%GPT-5.2 leads
AA Coding IndexSource 39.7%Not comparable
Reasoning
BenchmarkGPT-5.2o1Result
ARC-AGI-2Source 52.9%Not comparable
AA-LCRSource 72.7%59.3%GPT-5.2 leads
CritPtSource 11.6%0.3%GPT-5.2 leads
KnowledgeGPT-5.2 wins
BenchmarkGPT-5.2o1Result
GPQASource 92.4%75.7%GPT-5.2 leads
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource 42.2%23.4%GPT-5.2 leads
AA-GPQA DiamondSource 90.3%74.7%GPT-5.2 leads
AA-HLESource 35.4%7.7%GPT-5.2 leads
AA-Omniscience IndexSource -1.0%-10.5%GPT-5.2 leads
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource 43.8%34.7%GPT-5.2 leads
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource 79.7%69.3%o1 leads
MMLUSource 91.8%Not comparable
MathGPT-5.2 wins
BenchmarkGPT-5.2o1Result
AA AIME 2025Source 99.0%Not comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source 40.700%9.310%GPT-5.2 leads
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source 18.800%Not comparable
Multimodal
BenchmarkGPT-5.2o1Result
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
Inst. Following
BenchmarkGPT-5.2o1Result
AA-IFBenchSource 75.4%70.3%GPT-5.2 leads
IFEvalSource 92.2%Not comparable
Frequently Asked Questions (3)

Which is better, GPT-5.2 or o1?

GPT-5.2 is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 58.43 to 48.1. The biggest single separator in this matchup is FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3), where the scores are 40.700% and 9.310%.

Which is better for knowledge tasks, GPT-5.2 or o1?

GPT-5.2 has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 92.4 versus 75.7. Inside this category, AA-HLE is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for math, GPT-5.2 or o1?

GPT-5.2 has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 35.2 versus 9.3. Inside this category, FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3) is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Related Comparisons

Last updated: July 22, 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.