Model comparison
GPT-5.2 Pro vs Qwen1.5-72B
GPT-5.2 Pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 52.3 to 30.8 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 0 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- The widest gap is in math, where GPT-5.2 Pro leads 65.3 to 33.2.
- Qwen1.5-72B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| GPT-5.2 Pro | Qwen1.5-72B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | OpenAI | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 52.3 | 30.8 |
| Released | 2025-12-11 | 2024-02-04 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | 400K | — |
| Max output | 128K | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | $21 | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | $168 | — |
| Results tracked | 8 | 22 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Not comparable
GPT-5.2 Pro: —, Qwen1.5-72B: 31.9 (#277)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.2 Pro | Qwen1.5-72B |
|---|---|---|
| BigCodeBench Instruct | — | 33.2% |
| LMArena Coding | — | 1165 |
| BigCodeBench Complete | — | 40.3% |
| HumanEval+ | — | 59.1% |
| MBPP+ | — | 61.6% |
Reasoning GPT-5.2 Pro leads
GPT-5.2 Pro: 51.5 (#33), Qwen1.5-72B: 22.2 (#203)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.2 Pro | Qwen1.5-72B |
|---|---|---|
| ARC-AGI-2 | 54.2% | — |
| SimpleBench | 57.4% | — |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 79.3% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 90.5% | — |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | — | 1148 |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 155.4 | — |
Math GPT-5.2 Pro leads
GPT-5.2 Pro: 65.3 (#29), Qwen1.5-72B: 33.2 (#205)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.2 Pro | Qwen1.5-72B |
|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 74% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 46% | — |
| LMArena Math | — | 1164 |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | 31.3% | — |
Knowledge Not comparable
GPT-5.2 Pro: —, Qwen1.5-72B: 11.5 (#300)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.2 Pro | Qwen1.5-72B |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | — | 28.8% |
| LMArena Expert | — | 1136 |
Multilingual Not comparable
GPT-5.2 Pro: —, Qwen1.5-72B: 33.2 (#253)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.2 Pro | Qwen1.5-72B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | — | 1135 |
| LMArena Chinese | — | 1186 |
| LMArena French | — | 1159 |
| LMArena German | — | 1084 |
| LMArena Japanese | — | 1061 |
| LMArena Korean | — | 1050 |
| LMArena Russian | — | 1104 |
| LMArena Spanish | — | 1110 |
Instruction Following Not comparable
GPT-5.2 Pro: —, Qwen1.5-72B: 59.3 (#256)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.2 Pro | Qwen1.5-72B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | — | 1141 |
Long Context Not comparable
GPT-5.2 Pro: —, Qwen1.5-72B: 35.1 (#243)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.2 Pro | Qwen1.5-72B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | — | 1157 |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
GPT-5.2 Pro: —, Qwen1.5-72B: 37.3 (#258)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.2 Pro | Qwen1.5-72B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | — | 1166 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | — | 1137 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | — | 1160 |
Frequently asked questions
Is GPT-5.2 Pro better than Qwen1.5-72B?
GPT-5.2 Pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 52.3 to 30.8 on the Noometry Index.
How many benchmarks do GPT-5.2 Pro and Qwen1.5-72B share?
0 benchmarks have published results for both models. GPT-5.2 Pro has 8 scored results on Noometry and Qwen1.5-72B has 22.