Model comparison

GPT-5.2 Pro vs Qwen3.5-Flash

GPT-5.2 Pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 52.3 to 42.5 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3.5-Flash costs 330× less per token, which makes it the better buy when GPT-5.2 Pro's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Last verified October 11, 2026. 3 shared benchmarks.

GPT-5.2 Pro OpenAI

52.3

Rank #39 Reported

Qwen3.5-Flash

Alibaba (Qwen)

42.5

Rank #112 Confirmed

Summary

They share 3 benchmarks with published results for both. GPT-5.2 Pro scores higher in 2 categories and Qwen3.5-Flash in 0 categories; 2 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
The widest gap is in math, where GPT-5.2 Pro leads 65.3 to 37.4.
The biggest single-benchmark swing is FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3): 74% for GPT-5.2 Pro and 18.2% for Qwen3.5-Flash.
Qwen3.5-Flash is cheaper at $0.10 / $0.40 per million input/output tokens, against $21 / $168 for GPT-5.2 Pro.
Qwen3.5-Flash accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 400K.

Side by side

GPT-5.2 Pro and Qwen3.5-Flash specifications
	GPT-5.2 Pro	Qwen3.5-Flash
Provider	OpenAI	Alibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index	52.3	42.5
Released	2025-12-11	2026-02-23
Weights	Proprietary	Proprietary
Context window	400K	1M
Max output	128K	66K
Input $ / M tokens	$21	$0.10
Output $ / M tokens	$168	$0.40
Results tracked	8	32

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

Category by category

Coding Not comparable

GPT-5.2 Pro: —, Qwen3.5-Flash: 34.2 (#242)

Coding benchmarks
Benchmark	GPT-5.2 Pro	Qwen3.5-Flash
LMArena WebDev	—	1244
LMArena Coding	—	1412
ALE-Bench	—	221.8

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

GPT-5.2 Pro: —, Qwen3.5-Flash: —

Agentic & Tool Use benchmarks
Benchmark	GPT-5.2 Pro	Qwen3.5-Flash
Vending-Bench 2	—	462.69

Reasoning GPT-5.2 Pro leads

GPT-5.2 Pro: 51.5 (#33), Qwen3.5-Flash: 33.7 (#72)

Reasoning benchmarks
Benchmark	GPT-5.2 Pro	Qwen3.5-Flash
Epoch Capabilities Index	155.4	143.98
ARC-AGI-2	54.2%	—
SimpleBench	57.4%	—
NYT Connections (extended)	79.3%	—
ARC-AGI-1	90.5%	—
Chess Puzzles	—	21%
LMArena Hard Prompts	—	1403
Mystery Game Puzzles	—	20%
DTBench	—	82.9%
LMCA	—	29.1%

Math GPT-5.2 Pro leads

GPT-5.2 Pro: 65.3 (#29), Qwen3.5-Flash: 37.4 (#158)

Math benchmarks
Benchmark	GPT-5.2 Pro	Qwen3.5-Flash
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)	74%	18.2%
FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1)	31.3%	0%
FrontierMath Tier 4	46%	—
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025	—	84.4%
LMArena Math	—	1407
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)	—	6.2%

Knowledge Not comparable

GPT-5.2 Pro: —, Qwen3.5-Flash: 43.2 (#93)

Knowledge benchmarks
Benchmark	GPT-5.2 Pro	Qwen3.5-Flash
GPQA Diamond	—	82.3%
SimpleQA Verified	—	20.3%
Vectara Hallucination Rate	—	10.5%
LMArena Expert	—	1407

Multilingual Not comparable

GPT-5.2 Pro: —, Qwen3.5-Flash: 50.5 (#121)

Multilingual benchmarks
Benchmark	GPT-5.2 Pro	Qwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Non-English	—	1385
LMArena Chinese	—	1446
LMArena French	—	1412
LMArena German	—	1390
LMArena Japanese	—	1368
LMArena Korean	—	1344
LMArena Russian	—	1379
LMArena Spanish	—	1400

Instruction Following Not comparable

GPT-5.2 Pro: —, Qwen3.5-Flash: 72.6 (#139)

Instruction Following benchmarks
Benchmark	GPT-5.2 Pro	Qwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Instruction Following	—	1374

Long Context Not comparable

GPT-5.2 Pro: —, Qwen3.5-Flash: 42.4 (#124)

Long Context benchmarks
Benchmark	GPT-5.2 Pro	Qwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Longer Query	—	1392

Writing & Preference Not comparable

GPT-5.2 Pro: —, Qwen3.5-Flash: 57.9 (#122)

Writing & Preference benchmarks
Benchmark	GPT-5.2 Pro	Qwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Text	—	1397
LMArena Creative Writing	—	1343
LMArena Multi-Turn	—	1393

Frequently asked questions

Is GPT-5.2 Pro better than Qwen3.5-Flash?

Which is cheaper, GPT-5.2 Pro or Qwen3.5-Flash?

Qwen3.5-Flash is cheaper. It lists at $0.10 per million input tokens and $0.40 per million output tokens; GPT-5.2 Pro lists at $21 and $168.

Which has the bigger context window?

Qwen3.5-Flash does, with 1M tokens against 400K.

How many benchmarks do GPT-5.2 Pro and Qwen3.5-Flash share?

3 benchmarks have published results for both models. GPT-5.2 Pro has 8 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.5-Flash has 32.