Model comparison

GPT-5.2 vs Llama 3.2 11B

GPT-5.2 has enough public results to be ranked (#31); Llama 3.2 11B does not yet, so treat this comparison as directional.

Last verified October 10, 2026. 1 shared benchmarks.

GPT-5.2 OpenAI

54.1

Rank #31 Confirmed

Llama 3.2 11B

Summary

They share 1 benchmark with published results for both. GPT-5.2 scores higher in 2 categories and Llama 3.2 11B in 0 categories; 2 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
The widest gap is in multimodal, where GPT-5.2 leads 50.9 to 23.8.
Llama 3.2 11B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

GPT-5.2 and Llama 3.2 11B specifications
	GPT-5.2	Llama 3.2 11B
Provider	OpenAI	Meta
Noometry Index	54.1	31.6
Released	2025-12-11	2024-09-24
Weights	Proprietary	Open
Context window	400K	—
Max output	128K	—
Input $ / M tokens	$1.75	—
Output $ / M tokens	$14	—
Results tracked	67	3

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

Category by category

Coding Not comparable

GPT-5.2: 52.2 (#32), Llama 3.2 11B: —

Coding benchmarks
Benchmark	GPT-5.2	Llama 3.2 11B
SWE-bench Verified	73.8%	—
SWE-bench Verified (bash only)	72.8%	—
LMArena WebDev	1415	—
SWE-bench Multilingual	66.7%	—
GSO	27.4%	—
WeirdML	72.2%	—
LMArena Coding	1447	—
ALE-Bench	1,294	—
AlgoTune	2.05	—

Agentic & Tool Use GPT-5.2 leads

GPT-5.2: 40.0 (#24), Llama 3.2 11B: 27.0

Agentic & Tool Use benchmarks
Benchmark	GPT-5.2	Llama 3.2 11B
Terminal-Bench	64.9%	—
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard	55.9%	—
GDPval	49.7%	—
Remote Labor Index	2.5%	—
τ²-bench Airline	83%	—
τ²-bench Banking	32.2%	—
τ²-bench Retail	81.6%	—
τ²-bench Telecom	89.7%	—
DeepResearch Bench	41.1%	—
BALROG	—	16.8%
LMArena Search	1207	—
METR Time Horizons	75.3%	—
Vending-Bench 2	3,591	—

Reasoning Not comparable

GPT-5.2: 50.1 (#33), Llama 3.2 11B: —

Reasoning benchmarks
Benchmark	GPT-5.2	Llama 3.2 11B
ARC-AGI-2	52.9%	—
SimpleBench	45.8%	—
Kagi LLM Benchmark	73.3%	—
NYT Connections (extended)	83.6%	—
ARC-AGI-1	86.2%	—
Chess Puzzles	49%	—
EnigmaEval	10.4%	—
EBR-Bench	23%	—
LMArena Hard Prompts	1445	—
Mystery Game Puzzles	23%	—
DTBench	90.9%	—
LMCA	43.9%	—
Epoch Capabilities Index	153.45	—
ForecastBench	60.1	—

Math Not comparable

GPT-5.2: 59.8 (#32), Llama 3.2 11B: —

Math benchmarks
Benchmark	GPT-5.2	Llama 3.2 11B
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)	67.4%	—
FrontierMath Tier 4	31.7%	—
MathArena Final-Answer Competitions	72%	—
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025	96.1%	—
ProofBench	15%	—
LMArena Math	1439	—
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)	40.7%	—
FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1)	18.8%	—

Knowledge Not comparable

GPT-5.2: 59.2 (#29), Llama 3.2 11B: —

Knowledge benchmarks
Benchmark	GPT-5.2	Llama 3.2 11B
GPQA Diamond	91.4%	—
Humanity's Last Exam	27.8%	—
SimpleQA Verified	37.1%	—
Vectara Hallucination Rate	8.4%	—
LMArena Expert	1445	—
MMLU	—	56.5%

Multimodal GPT-5.2 leads

GPT-5.2: 50.9 (#7), Llama 3.2 11B: 23.8

Multimodal benchmarks
Benchmark	GPT-5.2	Llama 3.2 11B
LMArena Vision	1268	966
VPCT	84%	—
Furniture Assembly	38.3%	—
LMArena Document	1405	—

Multilingual Not comparable

GPT-5.2: 53.6 (#63), Llama 3.2 11B: —

Multilingual benchmarks
Benchmark	GPT-5.2	Llama 3.2 11B
LMArena Non-English	1425	—
LMArena Chinese	1460	—
LMArena French	1456	—
LMArena German	1448	—
LMArena Japanese	1421	—
LMArena Korean	1390	—
LMArena Russian	1440	—
LMArena Spanish	1433	—

Instruction Following Not comparable

GPT-5.2: 74.9 (#83), Llama 3.2 11B: —

Instruction Following benchmarks
Benchmark	GPT-5.2	Llama 3.2 11B
LMArena Instruction Following	1417	—

Long Context Not comparable

GPT-5.2: 44.0 (#74), Llama 3.2 11B: —

Long Context benchmarks
Benchmark	GPT-5.2	Llama 3.2 11B
CL-bench	18.2%	—
LMArena Longer Query	1428	—

Writing & Preference Not comparable

GPT-5.2: 67.0 (#30), Llama 3.2 11B: —

Writing & Preference benchmarks
Benchmark	GPT-5.2	Llama 3.2 11B
LMArena Text	1439	—
LMArena Creative Writing	1402	—
EQ-Bench Creative Writing	1703	—
LMArena Multi-Turn	1458	—

Frequently asked questions

Is GPT-5.2 better than Llama 3.2 11B?