Model comparison
Claude Opus 4.1 vs GPT-5.2 Pro
GPT-5.2 Pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 52.3 to 41.0 on the Noometry Index. Claude Opus 4.1 costs 1.9× less per token, which makes it the better buy when GPT-5.2 Pro's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 5 shared benchmarks.
Summary
- They share 5 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Opus 4.1 scores higher in 0 categories and GPT-5.2 Pro in 2 categories; 2 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where GPT-5.2 Pro leads 65.3 to 22.3.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3): 12.6% for Claude Opus 4.1 and 74% for GPT-5.2 Pro.
- Claude Opus 4.1 is cheaper at $15 / $75 per million input/output tokens, against $21 / $168 for GPT-5.2 Pro.
- GPT-5.2 Pro accepts more context: 400K tokens versus 200K.
Side by side
| Claude Opus 4.1 | GPT-5.2 Pro | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | OpenAI |
| Noometry Index | 41.0 | 52.3 |
| Released | 2025-08-05 | 2025-12-11 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Context window | 200K | 400K |
| Max output | 32K | 128K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $15 | $21 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $75 | $168 |
| Results tracked | 48 | 8 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Not comparable
Claude Opus 4.1: 44.4 (#73), GPT-5.2 Pro: —
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | GPT-5.2 Pro |
|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench Verified | 73.3% | — |
| LMArena WebDev | 1390 | — |
| WeirdML | 45.9% | — |
| LMArena Coding | 1479 | — |
| ALE-Bench | 674.77 | — |
| AlgoTune | 1.34 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Claude Opus 4.1: 35.0 (#41), GPT-5.2 Pro: —
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | GPT-5.2 Pro |
|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench | 38% | — |
| GDPval | 43.6% | — |
| Cybench | 42% | — |
| DeepResearch Bench | 48.3% | — |
| LMArena Search | 1148 | — |
| METR Time Horizons | 66.8% | — |
Reasoning GPT-5.2 Pro leads
Claude Opus 4.1: 32.2 (#76), GPT-5.2 Pro: 51.5 (#33)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | GPT-5.2 Pro |
|---|---|---|
| SimpleBench | 60% | 57.4% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 144.12 | 155.4 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | — | 54.2% |
| NYT Connections (extended) | — | 79.3% |
| ARC-AGI-1 | — | 90.5% |
| Chess Puzzles | 7% | — |
| EnigmaEval | 7.2% | — |
| EBR-Bench | 7.9% | — |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1443 | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 21% | — |
| DTBench | 80% | — |
| LMCA | 37.1% | — |
| ForecastBench | 62 | — |
Math GPT-5.2 Pro leads
Claude Opus 4.1: 22.3 (#277), GPT-5.2 Pro: 65.3 (#29)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | GPT-5.2 Pro |
|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 12.6% | 74% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 2.4% | 46% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | 4.2% | 31.3% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 68.9% | — |
| LMArena Math | 1431 | — |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 7.2% | — |
Knowledge Not comparable
Claude Opus 4.1: 42.0 (#101), GPT-5.2 Pro: —
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | GPT-5.2 Pro |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 77.3% | — |
| Humanity's Last Exam | 11.5% | — |
| Confabulations | 17.1% | — |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 11.8% | — |
| LMArena Expert | 1439 | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
Claude Opus 4.1: 26.8 (#119), GPT-5.2 Pro: —
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | GPT-5.2 Pro |
|---|---|---|
| VPCT | 35% | — |
Multilingual Not comparable
Claude Opus 4.1: 52.0 (#95), GPT-5.2 Pro: —
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | GPT-5.2 Pro |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1405 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 1427 | — |
| LMArena French | 1431 | — |
| LMArena German | 1413 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1378 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1380 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1422 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1448 | — |
Instruction Following Not comparable
Claude Opus 4.1: 75.6 (#58), GPT-5.2 Pro: —
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | GPT-5.2 Pro |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1435 | — |
Long Context Not comparable
Claude Opus 4.1: 44.5 (#63), GPT-5.2 Pro: —
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | GPT-5.2 Pro |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1455 | — |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
Claude Opus 4.1: 62.4 (#74), GPT-5.2 Pro: —
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | GPT-5.2 Pro |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1419 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1412 | — |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | 84.7% | — |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1444 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Claude Opus 4.1 better than GPT-5.2 Pro?
GPT-5.2 Pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 52.3 to 41.0 on the Noometry Index. Claude Opus 4.1 costs 1.9× less per token, which makes it the better buy when GPT-5.2 Pro's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, Claude Opus 4.1 or GPT-5.2 Pro?
Claude Opus 4.1 is cheaper. It lists at $15 per million input tokens and $75 per million output tokens; GPT-5.2 Pro lists at $21 and $168.
Which has the bigger context window?
GPT-5.2 Pro does, with 400K tokens against 200K.
How many benchmarks do Claude Opus 4.1 and GPT-5.2 Pro share?
5 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Opus 4.1 has 48 scored results on Noometry and GPT-5.2 Pro has 8.