Head-to-head comparison across 2benchmark categories. Overall scores shown here use BenchLM's provisional ranking lane.
GPT-5.2
79
o3-mini
55
Pick GPT-5.2 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. o3-mini only becomes the better choice if you want the cheaper token bill.
Coding
+15.4 difference
Knowledge
+15.2 difference
GPT-5.2
o3-mini
$1.75 / $14
$1.1 / $4.4
73 t/s
160 t/s
130.34s
7.12s
400K
200K
Pick GPT-5.2 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. o3-mini only becomes the better choice if you want the cheaper token bill.
GPT-5.2 is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 79 to 55. 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 coding, where it averages 64.7 against 49.3. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is SWE-bench Verified, 80% to 49.3%.
GPT-5.2 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $1.75 input / $14.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $1.10 input / $4.40 output per 1M tokens for o3-mini. That is roughly 3.2x on output cost alone. GPT-5.2 gives you the larger context window at 400K, compared with 200K for o3-mini.
GPT-5.2 is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 79 to 55. The biggest single separator in this matchup is SWE-bench Verified, where the scores are 80% and 49.3%.
GPT-5.2 has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 92.4 versus 77.2. Inside this category, AA-HLE is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
GPT-5.2 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 64.7 versus 49.3. Inside this category, Terminal-Bench Hard is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
For engineers, researchers, and the plain curious — a weekly brief on new models, ranking shifts, and pricing changes.
Free. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.