Model comparison
GPT-5.2 Pro vs Qwen3 14B
GPT-5.2 Pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 52.2 to 35.0 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3 14B costs 94× less per token, which makes it the better buy when GPT-5.2 Pro's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 1 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 1 benchmark with published results for both. GPT-5.2 Pro scores higher in 2 categories and Qwen3 14B in 0 categories; 2 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in reasoning, where GPT-5.2 Pro leads 51.8 to 18.1.
- Qwen3 14B is cheaper at $0.35 / $1.40 per million input/output tokens, against $21 / $168 for GPT-5.2 Pro.
- GPT-5.2 Pro accepts more context: 400K tokens versus 131K.
- Qwen3 14B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| GPT-5.2 Pro | Qwen3 14B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | OpenAI | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 52.2 | 35.0 |
| Released | 2025-12-11 | 2025-04 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | 400K | 131K |
| Max output | 128K | 8K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $21 | $0.35 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $168 | $1.40 |
| Results tracked | 8 | 12 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Not comparable
GPT-5.2 Pro: —, Qwen3 14B: 36.7 (#191)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.2 Pro | Qwen3 14B |
|---|---|---|
| SciCode | — | 31.6% |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
GPT-5.2 Pro: —, Qwen3 14B: 29.4 (#78)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.2 Pro | Qwen3 14B |
|---|---|---|
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | — | 41% |
Reasoning GPT-5.2 Pro leads
GPT-5.2 Pro: 51.8 (#31), Qwen3 14B: 18.1 (#272)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.2 Pro | Qwen3 14B |
|---|---|---|
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 155.41 | 138.23 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 54.2% | — |
| SimpleBench | 57.4% | — |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | — | 49.1% |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 79.3% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 90.5% | — |
| CritPt | — | 0% |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 4% |
| DTBench | — | 64% |
| LMCA | — | 18.2% |
Math GPT-5.2 Pro leads
GPT-5.2 Pro: 64.8 (#23), Qwen3 14B: 37.0 (#102)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.2 Pro | Qwen3 14B |
|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 74% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 46% | — |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 66.4% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | 31.3% | — |
Knowledge Not comparable
GPT-5.2 Pro: —, Qwen3 14B: 39.2 (#124)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.2 Pro | Qwen3 14B |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | — | 63.8% |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | — | 5.4% |
Long Context Not comparable
GPT-5.2 Pro: —, Qwen3 14B: 38.0 (#201)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.2 Pro | Qwen3 14B |
|---|---|---|
| Fiction.LiveBench | — | 62.5% |
Frequently asked questions
Is GPT-5.2 Pro better than Qwen3 14B?
GPT-5.2 Pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 52.2 to 35.0 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3 14B costs 94× 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, GPT-5.2 Pro or Qwen3 14B?
Qwen3 14B is cheaper. It lists at $0.35 per million input tokens and $1.40 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 131K.
How many benchmarks do GPT-5.2 Pro and Qwen3 14B share?
1 benchmark has published results for both models. GPT-5.2 Pro has 8 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3 14B has 12.