Model comparison

GPT-5.2 Codex vs QwQ-32B

GPT-5.2 Codex is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.2 to 39.4 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 0 shared benchmarks.

GPT-5.2 Codex OpenAI

42.2

Rank #107 Reported

QwQ-32B Alibaba (Qwen)

39.4

Rank #153 Confirmed

Summary

  • The widest gap is in coding, where GPT-5.2 Codex leads 45.4 to 34.9.
  • QwQ-32B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

GPT-5.2 Codex and QwQ-32B specifications
GPT-5.2 CodexQwQ-32B
ProviderOpenAIAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index42.239.4
Released2025-12-182024-11-28
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window400K—
Max output128K—
Input $ / M tokens$1.75—
Output $ / M tokens$14—
Results tracked536

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

Category by category

Coding GPT-5.2 Codex leads

GPT-5.2 Codex: 45.4 (#66), QwQ-32B: 34.9 (#220)

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkGPT-5.2 CodexQwQ-32B
SWE-bench Verified (bash only)72.8%—
Aider Polyglot—20.9%
LMArena WebDev1339—
SWE-bench Multilingual66.3%—
BigCodeBench Instruct—44.6%
LiveBench Coding—72.2%
LMArena Coding—1333
BigCodeBench Complete—54.4%
ALE-Bench1,300—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

GPT-5.2 Codex: 40.7 (#20), QwQ-32B: —

Agentic & Tool Use benchmarks
BenchmarkGPT-5.2 CodexQwQ-32B
Terminal-Bench66.5%—

Reasoning Not comparable

GPT-5.2 Codex: —, QwQ-32B: 22.9 (#171)

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkGPT-5.2 CodexQwQ-32B
Chess Puzzles—5%
LiveBench Reasoning—83.5%
LMArena Hard Prompts—1326
LiveBench Data Analysis—65%
Epoch Capabilities Index—137.6
ForecastBench—58.3
LiveBench—72%

Math Not comparable

GPT-5.2 Codex: —, QwQ-32B: 36.2 (#123)

Math benchmarks
BenchmarkGPT-5.2 CodexQwQ-32B
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025—59.2%
LiveBench Math—77.8%
LMArena Math—1359

Knowledge Not comparable

GPT-5.2 Codex: —, QwQ-32B: 37.2 (#150)

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkGPT-5.2 CodexQwQ-32B
GPQA Diamond—65.3%
Confabulations—15.6%
LMArena Expert—1323

Multilingual Not comparable

GPT-5.2 Codex: —, QwQ-32B: 45.0 (#171)

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkGPT-5.2 CodexQwQ-32B
LMArena Non-English—1306
LMArena Chinese—1378
LMArena French—1337
LMArena German—1313
LMArena Japanese—1263
LMArena Korean—1278
LMArena Russian—1297
LMArena Spanish—1353

Instruction Following Not comparable

GPT-5.2 Codex: —, QwQ-32B: 72.8 (#131)

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkGPT-5.2 CodexQwQ-32B
LiveBench Instruction Following—81.8%
LMArena Instruction Following—1297

Long Context Not comparable

GPT-5.2 Codex: —, QwQ-32B: 49.0 (#11)

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkGPT-5.2 CodexQwQ-32B
Fiction.LiveBench—83.3%
LMArena Longer Query—1308

Writing & Preference Not comparable

GPT-5.2 Codex: —, QwQ-32B: 50.9 (#175)

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkGPT-5.2 CodexQwQ-32B
LMArena Text—1329
LMArena Creative Writing—1288
Short-Story Creative Writing—80.2%
EQ-Bench Creative Writing—1257
LMArena Multi-Turn—1314
LiveBench Language—51.4%

Frequently asked questions

Is GPT-5.2 Codex better than QwQ-32B?

GPT-5.2 Codex is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.2 to 39.4 on the Noometry Index.

Is GPT-5.2 Codex or QwQ-32B better for coding?

GPT-5.2 Codex scores higher on coding benchmarks: 45.4 versus 34.9 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do GPT-5.2 Codex and QwQ-32B share?

0 benchmarks have published results for both models. GPT-5.2 Codex has 5 scored results on Noometry and QwQ-32B has 36.

Related comparisons

Go deeper