GPT-5.2 vs Qwen3.6 Plus

Updated October 10, 2026. Rank says GPT-5.2 is ahead. Price, access, and your workload can each overturn that. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty.

Decision reading

GPT-5.2 has the higher public score estimate, 60.33 versus 53.74, but the 90% score intervals overlap. Treat that as a lead, not a settled winner. 13 results are shared. Category rows resting on Estimated evidence or different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.

Model A

GPT-5.2

OpenAI

60.33/100

Supported · Public rank #50

90% interval 53.8–66.9

Model B

Qwen3.6 Plus

Alibaba

53.74/100

Supported · Public rank #74

90% interval 44.7–62.8

Shared results: 13
GPT-5.2 only: 18
Qwen3.6 Plus only: 37
Like-for-like categories: 4 / 8

Supported: GPT-5.2 and Qwen3.6 PlusHow the comparison works

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.

Coding work
Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks
Qwen3.6 Plus
Qwen3.6 Plus has the higher public coding point estimate, 41 to 37.7, with Supported evidence for both models. The conditional ranges do not establish rank confidence.
Confidence: limited
Agentic work
Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion
GPT-5.2
GPT-5.2 has the higher public agentic point estimate, 43.6 to 33.9, with Supported evidence for both models. The conditional ranges do not establish rank confidence.
Confidence: limited
Long documents
Prompts that approach the documented context limit
Qwen3.6 Plus
Qwen3.6 Plus has the larger documented context window.
Confidence: documented

Show secondary and unsupported calls

Chat turn cost
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
Not enough matched evidence
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Confidence: listed-rates
Cache-heavy agent loop cost
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
Not enough matched evidence
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Confidence: rate-fallback
Repository review cost
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
Not enough matched evidence
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Confidence: listed-rates

Which one for a specific job

Choose a job from the LLM Selector's task catalog to see the category row it rests on, under the same basis rules as the table below. A directional row stays directional; choosing a job never creates a winner.

Pick the job you would use them for

The same task catalog as the LLM Selector. Each job names the evidence surface it rests on; nothing here adds a new score.

37.7GPT-5.241.0Qwen3.6 Plus

Like-for-like · BenchAlign v5.8

Qwen3.6 Plus has the higher coding point estimate. Conditional score ranges do not establish rank confidence.

Coding scores combine specific tasks and setups. Match the editor, harness, and effort to your workflow.

Open the coding leaderboard Shortlist models for this job

Same basis rules as the category table below

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.

FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Math
Normalized gap 14.5
GPT-5.2:40.700%
Qwen3.6 Plus:26.207%
Shared source
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Math
Normalized gap 10.5
GPT-5.2:18.800%
Qwen3.6 Plus:8.333%
Shared source
GPQAKnowledge
Normalized gap 2.0
GPT-5.2:92.4%
Qwen3.6 Plus:90.4%
GPT-5.2 source Qwen3.6 Plus source
SWE-bench VerifiedCoding
Normalized gap 1.2
GPT-5.2:80%
Qwen3.6 Plus:78.8%
GPT-5.2 source Qwen3.6 Plus source
SWE-bench ProCoding
Normalized gap 1.0
GPT-5.2:55.6%
Qwen3.6 Plus:56.6%
GPT-5.2 source Qwen3.6 Plus source

Bars run 0–100 on each benchmark’s normalized display scale

Category results, on a stated basis

Each row shows the public-lane category score for both models: the BenchAlign v5.8 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.

Agentic

Like-for-like

GPT-5.2: 43.6; Supported · #58/123
Qwen3.6 Plus: 33.9; Supported · #79/123
Basis: BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 4 vs 13 public rows
Reading: GPT-5.2 leads · intervals overlap

Coding

Like-for-like

GPT-5.2: 37.7; Supported · #68/146
Qwen3.6 Plus: 41.0; Supported · #62/146
Basis: BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 3 vs 9 public rows
Reading: Qwen3.6 Plus leads · intervals overlap

Multimodal

Like-for-like

GPT-5.2: 75.9; #22/54
Qwen3.6 Plus: 76.1; #21/54
Basis: Provisional lane · 2 vs 2 weighted rows
Reading: Practical tie

Knowledge

Like-for-like

GPT-5.2: 59.6; Supported · #46/177
Qwen3.6 Plus: 53.9; Supported · #62/177
Basis: BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 1 vs 8 public rows
Reading: GPT-5.2 leads · intervals overlap

Instruction following

Directional only

GPT-5.2: 92.6; #19/127
Qwen3.6 Plus: 85.8; #45/127
Basis: Provisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows
Reading: Directional only

Reasoning

Not comparable

GPT-5.2: 64.4; Unranked · 4 rankable rows
Qwen3.6 Plus: 74.9; Unranked · 4 rankable rows
Basis: Provisional lane · 1 vs 1 weighted rows
Reading: Not comparable

Multilingual

Not comparable

GPT-5.2: Not ranked
Qwen3.6 Plus: 93.8; #4/17
Basis: Provisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows
Reading: Not comparable

Math

Not comparable

GPT-5.2: 57.9; Unranked · 3 rankable rows
Qwen3.6 Plus: 63.1; #5/7
Basis: Provisional lane · 2 vs 4 weighted rows
Reading: Not comparable

Category scores with the server-provided evidence basis for GPT-5.2 and Qwen3.6 Plus
Category	GPT-5.2	Qwen3.6 Plus	Basis	Reading
Agentic	43.6Supported · #58/123	33.9Supported · #79/123	Like-for-likeBenchAlign v5.8 lane · 4 vs 13 public rows	GPT-5.2 leads · intervals overlap
Coding	37.7Supported · #68/146	41.0Supported · #62/146	Like-for-likeBenchAlign v5.8 lane · 3 vs 9 public rows	Qwen3.6 Plus leads · intervals overlap
Multimodal	75.9#22/54	76.1#21/54	Like-for-likeProvisional lane · 2 vs 2 weighted rows	Practical tie
Knowledge	59.6Supported · #46/177	53.9Supported · #62/177	Like-for-likeBenchAlign v5.8 lane · 1 vs 8 public rows	GPT-5.2 leads · intervals overlap
Instruction following	92.6#19/127	85.8#45/127	Directional onlyProvisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows	Directional only
Reasoning	64.4Unranked · 4 rankable rows	74.9Unranked · 4 rankable rows	Not comparableProvisional lane · 1 vs 1 weighted rows	Not comparable
Multilingual	Not ranked	93.8#4/17	Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows	Not comparable
Math	57.9Unranked · 3 rankable rows	63.1#5/7	Not comparableProvisional lane · 2 vs 4 weighted rows	Not comparable

Ranks count the models scored in each category’s lane, so the agentic, coding, and knowledge denominators (BenchAlign v5.8) differ from the provisional-lane categories. Unranked scores sit on the provisional lane’s scale but never name a winner. Like-for-like rows within 0.5 points read as a practical tie.

Supported evidence per lane · bars run 0–100Methodology

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
Qwen3.6 Plus: API rate not published; Fits in one request

Qwen3.6 Plus has no comparable published API token rate.

Repository review

50K fresh input + 3K output tokens

GPT-5.2: $0.1295; Fits in one request
Qwen3.6 Plus: API rate not published; Fits in one request

Qwen3.6 Plus has no comparable published API token rate.

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
Qwen3.6 Plus: API rate not published; Fits in one request; Cached-input rate unavailable

GPT-5.2 has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate. Qwen3.6 Plus has no comparable published API token rate.

Cached input falls back to the list input rate only where a cached rate is unpublished

Specification differences

Sourced differences are shown directly. Missing facts stay explicit instead of being inferred from a model name or family.

SpecificationGPT-5.2Qwen3.6 Plus

Context window

Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.

GPT-5.2

400K

Qwen3.6 Plus

API model ID

GPT-5.2

Not sourced

Qwen3.6 Plus

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

Qwen3.6 Plus

No comparable hosted API rate

Documented inputs

GPT-5.2

Not sourced

Qwen3.6 Plus

Not sourced

Documented outputs

GPT-5.2

Not sourced

Qwen3.6 Plus

Not sourced

Provider availability

GPT-5.2

Not sourced

Qwen3.6 Plus

Not sourced

Reasoning profile

GPT-5.2

Reasoning

Qwen3.6 Plus

Reasoning

Weight access

GPT-5.2

Proprietary

Qwen3.6 Plus

Proprietary

License

GPT-5.2

Proprietary

Qwen3.6 Plus

Proprietary

Release date

GPT-5.2

2025-12-11

Qwen3.6 Plus

2026-04-02

If you already use one of these models

Deployment change: The models list different providers, so authentication, endpoint behavior, limits, and feature support may change.
Quality signal: GPT-5.2 has the higher public score estimate, 60.33 versus 53.74, but the 90% score intervals overlap.
Workload cost: A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Context tradeoff: Qwen3.6 Plus has the larger documented window (1M).

Run the same representative tasks against both endpoints before changing production traffic.

Questions

Which is better, GPT-5.2 or Qwen3.6 Plus?

GPT-5.2 has the higher public score estimate, 60.33 versus 53.74, but the 90% score intervals overlap. The higher estimate is not a decisive winner because the uncertainty ranges overlap.

Which is better for coding, GPT-5.2 or Qwen3.6 Plus?

Qwen3.6 Plus has the higher public coding point estimate, 41 to 37.7, with Supported evidence for both models. The conditional ranges do not establish rank confidence.

Which is better for agentic tasks, GPT-5.2 or Qwen3.6 Plus?

GPT-5.2 has the higher public agentic tasks point estimate, 43.6 to 33.9, with Supported evidence for both models. The conditional ranges do not establish rank confidence.

Which costs less, GPT-5.2 or Qwen3.6 Plus?

Both models do not have comparable published API token rates, so this page does not name a universal price winner.

Which has the larger context window, GPT-5.2 or Qwen3.6 Plus?

Qwen3.6 Plus has the larger documented context window: 1M, compared with 400K.

Benchmark evidence

The full public result ledger is available for audit without forcing a wide desktop table onto a phone.

Browse raw public benchmark evidence68 rows

Agentic

BrowseComp
GPT-5.265.8%
Source
Qwen3.6 Plus—
Not directly comparable
OSWorld-Verified
GPT-5.247.3%
Source
Qwen3.6 Plus—
Not directly comparable
Gert Labs
Shared source
GPT-5.246.54%
Qwen3.6 Plus50.60%
Qwen3.6 Plus leads this result
JobBench
GPT-5.234.3%
Source
Qwen3.6 Plus—
Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0
GPT-5.2—
Qwen3.6 Plus61.6%
Source
Not directly comparable
Claw-Eval
GPT-5.2—
Qwen3.6 Plus58.8%
Source
Not directly comparable
QwenClawBench
GPT-5.2—
Qwen3.6 Plus57.2%
Source
Not directly comparable
τ³-bench results
GPT-5.2—
Qwen3.6 Plus70.7%
Source
Not directly comparable
VITA-Bench
GPT-5.2—
Qwen3.6 Plus44.3%
Source
Not directly comparable
DeepPlanning
GPT-5.2—
Qwen3.6 Plus41.5%
Source
Not directly comparable
Toolathlon
GPT-5.2—
Qwen3.6 Plus39.8%
Source
Not directly comparable
MCP Atlas
GPT-5.2—
Qwen3.6 Plus48.2%
Source
Not directly comparable
MCP-Tasks
GPT-5.2—
Qwen3.6 Plus74.1%
Source
Not directly comparable
WideResearch
GPT-5.2—
Qwen3.6 Plus74.3%
Source
Not directly comparable
ResearchClawBench
GPT-5.2—
Qwen3.6 Plus18.0%
Source
Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals)
GPT-5.2—
Qwen3.6 Plus53.2%
Source
Not directly comparable

Coding

SWE-bench Verified
GPT-5.280%
Source
Qwen3.6 Plus78.8%
Source
GPT-5.2 leads this result
SWE-bench Pro
GPT-5.255.6%
Source
Qwen3.6 Plus56.6%
Source
Qwen3.6 Plus leads this result
Vibe Code Bench
Shared source
GPT-5.253.50%
Qwen3.6 Plus25.56%
GPT-5.2 leads this result
SWE Multilingual
GPT-5.2—
Qwen3.6 Plus73.8%
Source
Not directly comparable
LiveCodeBench v6
GPT-5.2—
Qwen3.6 Plus87.1%
Source
Not directly comparable
NL2Repo
GPT-5.2—
Qwen3.6 Plus37.9%
Source
Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0
GPT-5.2—
Qwen3.6 Plus61.6%
Source
Not directly comparable
LiveCodeBench (Vals)
GPT-5.2—
Qwen3.6 Plus86.0%
Source
Not directly comparable
SWE-bench (Vals)
GPT-5.2—
Qwen3.6 Plus73.4%
Source
Not directly comparable

Reasoning

ARC-AGI-2
GPT-5.252.9%
Source
Qwen3.6 Plus—
Not directly comparable
ARC-AGI-1
GPT-5.286.17%
Source
Qwen3.6 Plus—
Not directly comparable
AI-Needle
GPT-5.2—
Qwen3.6 Plus68.3%
Source
Not directly comparable
LongBench v2
GPT-5.2—
Qwen3.6 Plus62%
Source
Not directly comparable

Multimodal

MMMU
GPT-5.286.7%
Source
Qwen3.6 Plus86.0%
Source
GPT-5.2 leads this result
MMMU-Pro
GPT-5.279.5%
Source
Qwen3.6 Plus78.8%
Source
GPT-5.2 leads this result
RealWorldQA
GPT-5.283.3%
Source
Qwen3.6 Plus—
Not directly comparable
OmniDocBench 1.5
GPT-5.285.7%
Source
Qwen3.6 Plus—
Not directly comparable
Video-MME (with subtitle)
GPT-5.286.0%
Source
Qwen3.6 Plus—
Not directly comparable
Video-MME (w/o subtitle)
GPT-5.285.8%
Source
Qwen3.6 Plus—
Not directly comparable
MathVision
Shared source
GPT-5.283.0%
Qwen3.6 Plus88.0%
Qwen3.6 Plus leads this result
We-Math
GPT-5.279.0%
Source
Qwen3.6 Plus—
Not directly comparable
DynaMath
GPT-5.286.8%
Source
Qwen3.6 Plus—
Not directly comparable
SimpleVQA
GPT-5.255.8%
Source
Qwen3.6 Plus—
Not directly comparable
CC-OCR
GPT-5.270.3%
Source
Qwen3.6 Plus—
Not directly comparable
AI2D_TEST
GPT-5.292.2%
Source
Qwen3.6 Plus—
Not directly comparable
CountBench
GPT-5.291.9%
Source
Qwen3.6 Plus—
Not directly comparable
ERQA
GPT-5.259.8%
Source
Qwen3.6 Plus—
Not directly comparable
VideoMMMU
GPT-5.285.9%
Source
Qwen3.6 Plus84.0%
Source
GPT-5.2 leads this result
MLVU (M-Avg)
GPT-5.285.6%
Source
Qwen3.6 Plus—
Not directly comparable
CharXiv
Shared source
GPT-5.282.1%
Qwen3.6 Plus81.5%
GPT-5.2 leads this result
V*
Shared source
GPT-5.275.9%
Qwen3.6 Plus96.9%
Qwen3.6 Plus leads this result
ScreenSpot Pro
GPT-5.2—
Qwen3.6 Plus68.2%
Source
Not directly comparable

Knowledge

GPQA
GPT-5.292.4%
Source
Qwen3.6 Plus90.4%
Source
GPT-5.2 leads this result
SuperGPQA
GPT-5.2—
Qwen3.6 Plus71.6%
Source
Not directly comparable
MMLU-Pro
GPT-5.2—
Qwen3.6 Plus88.5%
Source
Not directly comparable
MMLU-Redux
GPT-5.2—
Qwen3.6 Plus94.5%
Source
Not directly comparable
C-Eval
GPT-5.2—
Qwen3.6 Plus93.3%
Source
Not directly comparable
HLE
GPT-5.2—
Qwen3.6 Plus28.8%
Source
Not directly comparable
GPQA Diamond (Vals)
GPT-5.2—
Qwen3.6 Plus87.4%
Source
Not directly comparable
MMLU-Pro (Vals)
GPT-5.2—
Qwen3.6 Plus87.7%
Source
Not directly comparable

Multilingual

MMLU-ProX
GPT-5.2—
Qwen3.6 Plus84.7%
Source
Not directly comparable
NOVA-63
GPT-5.2—
Qwen3.6 Plus57.9%
Source
Not directly comparable

Instruction following

IFEval
GPT-5.2—
Qwen3.6 Plus94.3%
Source
Not directly comparable
IFBench
GPT-5.2—
Qwen3.6 Plus75.8%
Source
Not directly comparable

Math

AIME 2025
GPT-5.2100%
Source
Qwen3.6 Plus—
Not directly comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)
Shared source
GPT-5.240.700%
Qwen3.6 Plus26.207%
GPT-5.2 leads this result
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)
Shared source
GPT-5.218.800%
Qwen3.6 Plus8.333%
GPT-5.2 leads this result
AIME26
GPT-5.2—
Qwen3.6 Plus95.3%
Source
Not directly comparable
HMMT Feb 2025
GPT-5.2—
Qwen3.6 Plus96.7%
Source
Not directly comparable
HMMT Nov 2025
GPT-5.2—
Qwen3.6 Plus94.6%
Source
Not directly comparable
HMMT Feb 2026
GPT-5.2—
Qwen3.6 Plus87.8%
Source
Not directly comparable
MMAnswerBench
GPT-5.2—
Qwen3.6 Plus83.8%
Source
Not directly comparable

68 public results · 13 shared

Related comparisons

Compare API pricing Read the methodology Open the model selector

Watch GPT-5.2 vs Qwen3.6 Plus

One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.

Read a sample issue

Join 5,500+ readers.

Last updated October 10, 2026

GPT-5.2 vs Qwen3.6 Plus

Decision reading

Which one for your work

Coding work

Agentic work

Long documents

Chat turn cost

Cache-heavy agent loop cost

Repository review cost

Which one for a specific job

What is actually comparable

Shape of the matched evidence

Category results, on a stated basis

Agentic

Coding

Multimodal

Knowledge

Instruction following

Reasoning

Multilingual

Math

What each workload costs

Chat turn

Repository review

Cache-heavy agent loop

Specification differences

Context window

API model ID

Cached-input rate

Documented inputs

Documented outputs

Provider availability

Reasoning profile

Weight access

License

Release date

If you already use one of these models

Questions

Which is better, GPT-5.2 or Qwen3.6 Plus?

Which is better for coding, GPT-5.2 or Qwen3.6 Plus?

Which is better for agentic tasks, GPT-5.2 or Qwen3.6 Plus?

Which costs less, GPT-5.2 or Qwen3.6 Plus?

Which has the larger context window, GPT-5.2 or Qwen3.6 Plus?

Benchmark evidence

Agentic

Coding

Reasoning

Multimodal

Knowledge

Multilingual

Instruction following

Math

Related comparisons

Watch GPT-5.2 vs Qwen3.6 Plus