Noometry

Model comparison

GPT-5.2 Pro vs Qwen3.8 Max

Qwen3.8 Max is the stronger model overall, scoring 56.8 to 52.3 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 4 shared benchmarks.

GPT-5.2 Pro OpenAI

52.3

Rank #39 Reported

Qwen3.8 Max Alibaba (Qwen)

56.8

Rank #22 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 4 benchmarks with published results for both. GPT-5.2 Pro scores higher in 0 categories and Qwen3.8 Max in 2 categories; 2 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in math, where Qwen3.8 Max leads 73.2 to 65.3.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is NYT Connections (extended): 79.3% for GPT-5.2 Pro and 88.3% for Qwen3.8 Max.
  • Qwen3.8 Max is cheaper at $2 / $6 per million input/output tokens, against $21 / $168 for GPT-5.2 Pro.
  • Qwen3.8 Max accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 400K.

Side by side

GPT-5.2 ProQwen3.8 Max
ProviderOpenAIAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index52.356.8
Released2025-12-112026-08-02
WeightsProprietaryProprietary
Context window400K1M
Max output128K131K
Input $ / M tokens$21$2
Output $ / M tokens$168$6
Results tracked839

Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry

Category by category

Coding Not comparable

GPT-5.2 Pro: —, Qwen3.8 Max: 53.5 (#29)

BenchmarkGPT-5.2 ProQwen3.8 Max
DeepSWE—57.5%
LMArena WebDev—1674
FrontierSWE—17.8%
SciCode—53.2%
LMArena Coding—1502

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

GPT-5.2 Pro: —, Qwen3.8 Max: 45.4 (#14)

BenchmarkGPT-5.2 ProQwen3.8 Max
APEX-Agents—63.3%
τ²-bench Banking—55.1%
GDP.pdf—23.2%

Reasoning Qwen3.8 Max leads

GPT-5.2 Pro: 51.5 (#33), Qwen3.8 Max: 54.4 (#26)

BenchmarkGPT-5.2 ProQwen3.8 Max
NYT Connections (extended)79.3%88.3%
Epoch Capabilities Index155.4156.41
ARC-AGI-254.2%—
SimpleBench57.4%—
ARC-AGI-190.5%—
CritPt—20%
Chess Puzzles—40%
LMArena Hard Prompts—1496
Mystery Game Puzzles—38%
DTBench—92%
LMCA—46.2%

Math Qwen3.8 Max leads

GPT-5.2 Pro: 65.3 (#29), Qwen3.8 Max: 73.2 (#20)

BenchmarkGPT-5.2 ProQwen3.8 Max
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)74%74.7%
FrontierMath Tier 446%46.3%
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025—100%
ProofBench—58%
LMArena Math—1499
FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1)31.3%—

Knowledge Not comparable

GPT-5.2 Pro: —, Qwen3.8 Max: 61.7 (#27)

BenchmarkGPT-5.2 ProQwen3.8 Max
GPQA Diamond—92.7%
SimpleQA Verified—47.3%
LMArena Expert—1507

Multimodal Not comparable

GPT-5.2 Pro: —, Qwen3.8 Max: 37.2 (#75)

BenchmarkGPT-5.2 ProQwen3.8 Max
LMArena Vision—1314
Furniture Assembly—20%

Multilingual Not comparable

GPT-5.2 Pro: —, Qwen3.8 Max: 56.7 (#18)

BenchmarkGPT-5.2 ProQwen3.8 Max
LMArena Non-English—1472
LMArena Chinese—1538
LMArena French—1503
LMArena German—1483
LMArena Japanese—1467
LMArena Korean—1461
LMArena Russian—1481
LMArena Spanish—1492

Instruction Following Not comparable

GPT-5.2 Pro: —, Qwen3.8 Max: 77.6 (#17)

BenchmarkGPT-5.2 ProQwen3.8 Max
LMArena Instruction Following—1479

Long Context Not comparable

GPT-5.2 Pro: —, Qwen3.8 Max: 45.6 (#31)

BenchmarkGPT-5.2 ProQwen3.8 Max
LMArena Longer Query—1489

Writing & Preference Not comparable

GPT-5.2 Pro: —, Qwen3.8 Max: 67.1 (#30)

BenchmarkGPT-5.2 ProQwen3.8 Max
LMArena Text—1483
LMArena Creative Writing—1479
LMArena Multi-Turn—1489

Frequently asked questions

Is GPT-5.2 Pro better than Qwen3.8 Max?

Qwen3.8 Max is the stronger model overall, scoring 56.8 to 52.3 on the Noometry Index.

Which is cheaper, GPT-5.2 Pro or Qwen3.8 Max?

Qwen3.8 Max is cheaper. It lists at $2 per million input tokens and $6 per million output tokens; GPT-5.2 Pro lists at $21 and $168.

Which has the bigger context window?

Qwen3.8 Max does, with 1M tokens against 400K.

How many benchmarks do GPT-5.2 Pro and Qwen3.8 Max share?

4 benchmarks have published results for both models. GPT-5.2 Pro has 8 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.8 Max has 39.

Related comparisons

Go deeper