Model comparison

GPT-5.2 Codex vs Qwen3.8 27B

Qwen3.8 27B is the stronger model overall, scoring 46.0 to 42.6 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 1 shared benchmarks.

GPT-5.2 Codex OpenAI

42.6

Rank #111 Reported

Qwen3.8 27B Alibaba (Qwen)

46.0

Rank #68 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 1 benchmark with published results for both. GPT-5.2 Codex scores higher in 1 category and Qwen3.8 27B in 1 category; 2 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in agentic & tool use, where GPT-5.2 Codex leads 41.0 to 32.9.
  • Qwen3.8 27B is cheaper at $0.99 / $1.49 per million input/output tokens, against $1.75 / $14 for GPT-5.2 Codex.
  • GPT-5.2 Codex accepts more context: 400K tokens versus 262K.
  • Qwen3.8 27B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

GPT-5.2 Codex and Qwen3.8 27B specifications
GPT-5.2 CodexQwen3.8 27B
ProviderOpenAIAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index42.646.0
Released2025-12-182026-08-14
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window400K262K
Max output128K33K
Input $ / M tokens$1.75$0.99
Output $ / M tokens$14$1.49
Results tracked531

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

Category by category

Coding Qwen3.8 27B leads

GPT-5.2 Codex: 45.5 (#71), Qwen3.8 27B: 50.5 (#44)

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkGPT-5.2 CodexQwen3.8 27B
LMArena WebDev13391593
SWE-bench Verified (bash only)72.8%—
SWE-bench Multilingual66.3%—
SciCode—46.6%
LMArena Coding—1482
ALE-Bench1,300—

Agentic & Tool Use GPT-5.2 Codex leads

GPT-5.2 Codex: 41.0 (#22), Qwen3.8 27B: 32.9 (#57)

Agentic & Tool Use benchmarks
BenchmarkGPT-5.2 CodexQwen3.8 27B
Terminal-Bench66.5%—
APEX-Agents—47.5%

Reasoning Not comparable

GPT-5.2 Codex: —, Qwen3.8 27B: 41.0 (#54)

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkGPT-5.2 CodexQwen3.8 27B
ARC-AGI-2—42.4%
NYT Connections (extended)—54.5%
ARC-AGI-1—87.5%
CritPt—5.4%
LMArena Hard Prompts—1460
DTBench—88%
LMCA—41.4%
Surface Evolver Bench—45%
Epoch Capabilities Index—149.38

Math Not comparable

GPT-5.2 Codex: —, Qwen3.8 27B: 37.1 (#161)

Math benchmarks
BenchmarkGPT-5.2 CodexQwen3.8 27B
ProofBench—16%
LMArena Math—1456

Knowledge Not comparable

GPT-5.2 Codex: —, Qwen3.8 27B: 41.6 (#109)

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkGPT-5.2 CodexQwen3.8 27B
LMArena Expert—1482

Multimodal Not comparable

GPT-5.2 Codex: —, Qwen3.8 27B: 41.3 (#37)

Multimodal benchmarks
BenchmarkGPT-5.2 CodexQwen3.8 27B
LMArena Vision—1271

Multilingual Not comparable

GPT-5.2 Codex: —, Qwen3.8 27B: 53.7 (#60)

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkGPT-5.2 CodexQwen3.8 27B
LMArena Non-English—1430
LMArena Chinese—1504
LMArena French—1465
LMArena German—1438
LMArena Japanese—1384
LMArena Korean—1393
LMArena Russian—1415
LMArena Spanish—1448

Instruction Following Not comparable

GPT-5.2 Codex: —, Qwen3.8 27B: 75.8 (#53)

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkGPT-5.2 CodexQwen3.8 27B
LMArena Instruction Following—1439

Long Context Not comparable

GPT-5.2 Codex: —, Qwen3.8 27B: 44.3 (#70)

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkGPT-5.2 CodexQwen3.8 27B
LMArena Longer Query—1450

Writing & Preference Not comparable

GPT-5.2 Codex: —, Qwen3.8 27B: 65.8 (#43)

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkGPT-5.2 CodexQwen3.8 27B
LMArena Text—1441
LMArena Creative Writing—1384
EQ-Bench Creative Writing—1671
LMArena Multi-Turn—1441

Frequently asked questions

Is GPT-5.2 Codex better than Qwen3.8 27B?

Qwen3.8 27B is the stronger model overall, scoring 46.0 to 42.6 on the Noometry Index.

Which is cheaper, GPT-5.2 Codex or Qwen3.8 27B?

Qwen3.8 27B is cheaper. It lists at $0.99 per million input tokens and $1.49 per million output tokens; GPT-5.2 Codex lists at $1.75 and $14.

Is GPT-5.2 Codex or Qwen3.8 27B better for coding?

Qwen3.8 27B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 50.5 versus 45.5 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

GPT-5.2 Codex does, with 400K tokens against 262K.

How many benchmarks do GPT-5.2 Codex and Qwen3.8 27B share?

1 benchmark has published results for both models. GPT-5.2 Codex has 5 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.8 27B has 31.

Related comparisons

Go deeper