Knowledge
Like-for-like- GPT-5.2
- 61.7
- Supported · #30/183
- o3-mini
- 39.7
- Supported · #134/183
- Basis
- BenchAlign lane · 1 vs 2 public rows
- Reading
- GPT-5.2 leads · intervals overlap
GPT-5.2 vs o3-mini
Updated September 10, 2026. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. They are not guarantees for a specific workload.
Decision reading
GPT-5.2 has the higher public score, 64.88 versus 46.83, and the 90% score intervals do not overlap.
2 results are shared. Category rows resting on Estimated evidence or different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.
Share or export
Which one for your work
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.
Long documents
Prompts that approach the documented context limit
GPT-5.2
GPT-5.2 has the larger documented context window.
Confidence: documented
Chat turn cost
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
o3-mini
o3-mini has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Confidence: listed-rates
Show secondary and unsupported calls
Repository review cost
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
o3-mini
o3-mini has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Confidence: listed-rates
Coding work
Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks
Not enough matched evidence
O3-mini is scored on Estimated evidence for coding, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like.
Confidence: limited
Agentic work
Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion
Not enough matched evidence
O3-mini is not ranked on the public lane for agentic, so no winner is named for agentic.
Confidence: limited
Cache-heavy agent loop cost
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
Not enough matched evidence
The page does not recommend a cost winner because at least one model cannot fit the stated workload in one request. o3-mini does not fit this workload in one request. GPT-5.2 has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate. o3-mini has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.
Confidence: rate-fallback
What is actually comparable
Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results present for only one model describe coverage, not superiority.
13 GPT-5.2 only
2 Shared
3 o3-mini only
- Shared results
- 2
- GPT-5.2 only
- 13
- o3-mini only
- 3
- Like-for-like categories
- 1 / 8
1 category rests on Estimated evidence or different evidence sets. Those rows remain visible for coverage context but do not name a winner.
Category results, on a stated basis
Each row shows the public-lane category score for both models: the BenchAlign 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.
Coding
Directional only- GPT-5.2
- 46.4
- Supported · #81/151
- o3-mini
- 45.3
- Estimated · #88/151
- Basis
- BenchAlign lane · 3 vs 1 public rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Agentic
Not comparable- GPT-5.2
- 42.9
- Supported · #104/152
- o3-mini
- Not ranked
- Basis
- BenchAlign lane · 4 vs 0 public rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Reasoning
Not comparable- GPT-5.2
- 53.7
- Unranked · 3 rankable rows
- o3-mini
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 1 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Math
Not comparable- GPT-5.2
- 57.5
- Unranked · 2 rankable rows
- o3-mini
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 2 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multilingual
Not comparable- GPT-5.2
- Not ranked
- o3-mini
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multimodal
Not comparable- GPT-5.2
- 66.3
- #23/48
- o3-mini
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 2 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Instruction following
Not comparable- GPT-5.2
- 92.6
- #14/123
- o3-mini
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
| Category | GPT-5.2 | o3-mini | Basis | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Knowledge | 61.7Supported · #30/183 | 39.7Supported · #134/183 | Like-for-likeBenchAlign lane · 1 vs 2 public rows | GPT-5.2 leads · intervals overlap |
| Coding | 46.4Supported · #81/151 | 45.3Estimated · #88/151 | Directional onlyBenchAlign lane · 3 vs 1 public rows | Directional only |
| Agentic | 42.9Supported · #104/152 | Not ranked | Not comparableBenchAlign lane · 4 vs 0 public rows | Not comparable |
| Reasoning | 53.7Unranked · 3 rankable rows | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 1 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Math | 57.5Unranked · 2 rankable rows | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 2 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Multilingual | Not ranked | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Multimodal | 66.3#23/48 | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 2 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Instruction following | 92.6#14/123 | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
Ranks count the models scored in each category’s lane, so the agentic, coding, and knowledge denominators (BenchAlign) differ from the provisional-lane categories. Unranked scores sit on the lane’s scale but never name a winner. Like-for-like rows within 0.5 points read as a practical tie.
Shape of the matched evidence
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.
SWE-bench Verified
Coding
GPQA
Knowledge
What each workload costs
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.
Chat turn
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
- GPT-5.2
- $0.00875
- Fits in one request
- o3-mini
- $0.0033
- Fits in one request
o3-mini has the lower modeled cost
Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Repository review
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
- GPT-5.2
- $0.1295
- Fits in one request
- o3-mini
- $0.0682
- Fits in one request
o3-mini has the lower modeled cost
Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Cache-heavy agent loop
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
- GPT-5.2
- $0.525
- Fits in one request
- Cached input priced at the published list-input rate
- o3-mini
- $0.286
- Does not fit in one request
- Cached input priced at the published list-input rate
o3-mini does not fit this workload in one request. GPT-5.2 has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate. o3-mini has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.
Specification differences
Sourced differences are shown directly. Missing facts stay explicit instead of being inferred from a model name or family.
SpecificationGPT-5.2o3-mini
Context window
Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.
GPT-5.2
400K
o3-mini
200K
API model ID
GPT-5.2
Not sourced
o3-mini
Not sourced
Cached-input rate
A missing cached-input rate falls back to the listed input rate only in the stated workload estimate.
GPT-5.2
Not published
o3-mini
Not published
Documented inputs
GPT-5.2
Not sourced
o3-mini
Not sourced
Documented outputs
GPT-5.2
Not sourced
o3-mini
Not sourced
Provider availability
GPT-5.2
Not sourced
o3-mini
Not sourced
Reasoning profile
GPT-5.2
Reasoning
o3-mini
Reasoning
Weight access
GPT-5.2
Proprietary
o3-mini
Proprietary
License
GPT-5.2
Proprietary
o3-mini
Proprietary
Release date
GPT-5.2
2025-12-11
o3-mini
2025-01-31
If you already use one of these models
- Deployment change
- Both entries list OpenAI as the provider. Confirm endpoint, model ID, limits, and feature support before switching.
- Quality signal
- GPT-5.2 has the higher public score, 64.88 versus 46.83, and the 90% score intervals do not overlap.
- Workload cost
- Repository review: $0.1295 vs $0.0682. Cache-heavy agent loop: $0.525 vs $0.286.
- Context tradeoff
- GPT-5.2 has the larger documented window (400K).
Run the same representative tasks against both endpoints before changing production traffic.
Benchmark evidence
The full public result ledger is available for audit without forcing a wide desktop table onto a phone.
Frequently asked questions
Which is better, GPT-5.2 or o3-mini?
GPT-5.2 has the higher public score, 64.88 versus 46.83, and the 90% score intervals do not overlap. That is the clearest overall quality signal in the current public data.
Which is better for coding, GPT-5.2 or o3-mini?
GPT-5.2 scores higher for coding on the public lane, 46.4 to 45.3. O3-mini is scored on Estimated evidence for coding, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like. BenchLM does not name a winner for coding from a directional reading; read the shared benchmark rows directly and test the models on the same task set.
Which is better for agentic tasks, GPT-5.2 or o3-mini?
O3-mini is not ranked on the public lane for agentic tasks, so no winner is named for agentic tasks.
Which costs less, GPT-5.2 or o3-mini?
For the stated presets, chat costs $0.00875 on GPT-5.2 and $0.0033 on o3-mini; repository review costs $0.1295 and $0.0682; the cache-heavy agent loop costs $0.525 and $0.286. o3-mini does not fit this workload in one request. GPT-5.2 has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate. o3-mini has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.
Which has the larger context window, GPT-5.2 or o3-mini?
GPT-5.2 has the larger documented context window: 400K, compared with 200K.
Related comparisons
Last updated September 10, 2026
Watch GPT-5.2 vs o3-mini
One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.
Read a sample issueJoin 2,000+ readers.