Model comparison
GPT-5.2 vs OLMo 2 Furious 13B
GPT-5.2 is the stronger model overall, scoring 54.1 to 29.2 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 0 shared benchmarks.
Allen Institute for AI (Ai2)Summary
- The widest gap is in knowledge, where GPT-5.2 leads 59.2 to 18.0.
- OLMo 2 Furious 13B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| GPT-5.2 | OLMo 2 Furious 13B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | OpenAI | Allen Institute for AI (Ai2) |
| Noometry Index | 54.1 | 29.2 |
| Released | 2025-12-11 | 2024-12-31 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | 400K | — |
| Max output | 128K | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | $1.75 | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | $14 | — |
| Results tracked | 67 | 12 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding GPT-5.2 leads
GPT-5.2: 52.2 (#32), OLMo 2 Furious 13B: 28.1 (#309)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.2 | OLMo 2 Furious 13B |
|---|---|---|
| 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% | — |
| LiveBench Coding | — | 10.4% |
| LMArena Coding | 1447 | — |
| ALE-Bench | 1,294 | — |
| AlgoTune | 2.05 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
GPT-5.2: 40.0 (#24), OLMo 2 Furious 13B: —
| Benchmark | GPT-5.2 | OLMo 2 Furious 13B |
|---|---|---|
| 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% | — |
| LMArena Search | 1207 | — |
| METR Time Horizons | 75.3% | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | 3,591 | — |
Reasoning GPT-5.2 leads
GPT-5.2: 50.1 (#33), OLMo 2 Furious 13B: 14.8 (#312)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.2 | OLMo 2 Furious 13B |
|---|---|---|
| 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% | — |
| LiveBench Reasoning | — | 16.3% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1445 | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 23% | — |
| DTBench | 90.9% | — |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | — | 20.6% |
| LMCA | 43.9% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 153.45 | — |
| ForecastBench | 60.1 | — |
| LiveBench | — | 22.1% |
Math GPT-5.2 leads
GPT-5.2: 59.8 (#32), OLMo 2 Furious 13B: 21.3 (#270)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.2 | OLMo 2 Furious 13B |
|---|---|---|
| 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% | — |
| Omni-MATH | — | 15.6% |
| LiveBench Math | — | 13.6% |
| LMArena Math | 1439 | — |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 40.7% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | 18.8% | — |
Knowledge GPT-5.2 leads
GPT-5.2: 59.2 (#29), OLMo 2 Furious 13B: 18.0 (#278)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.2 | OLMo 2 Furious 13B |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 91.4% | — |
| Humanity's Last Exam | 27.8% | — |
| SimpleQA Verified | 37.1% | — |
| MMLU-Pro | — | 31% |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 8.4% | — |
| GPQA (HELM) | — | 31.6% |
| LMArena Expert | 1445 | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
GPT-5.2: 50.9 (#7), OLMo 2 Furious 13B: —
| Benchmark | GPT-5.2 | OLMo 2 Furious 13B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1268 | — |
| VPCT | 84% | — |
| Furniture Assembly | 38.3% | — |
| LMArena Document | 1405 | — |
Multilingual Not comparable
GPT-5.2: 53.6 (#63), OLMo 2 Furious 13B: —
| Benchmark | GPT-5.2 | OLMo 2 Furious 13B |
|---|---|---|
| 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 GPT-5.2 leads
GPT-5.2: 74.9 (#83), OLMo 2 Furious 13B: 61.1 (#243)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.2 | OLMo 2 Furious 13B |
|---|---|---|
| LiveBench Instruction Following | — | 60.6% |
| IFEval | — | 73% |
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1417 | — |
Long Context Not comparable
GPT-5.2: 44.0 (#74), OLMo 2 Furious 13B: —
| Benchmark | GPT-5.2 | OLMo 2 Furious 13B |
|---|---|---|
| CL-bench | 18.2% | — |
| LMArena Longer Query | 1428 | — |
Writing & Preference GPT-5.2 leads
GPT-5.2: 67.0 (#30), OLMo 2 Furious 13B: 43.0 (#226)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.2 | OLMo 2 Furious 13B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1439 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1402 | — |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1703 | — |
| WildBench | — | 68.9% |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1458 | — |
| LiveBench Language | — | 11.2% |
Frequently asked questions
Is GPT-5.2 better than OLMo 2 Furious 13B?
GPT-5.2 is the stronger model overall, scoring 54.1 to 29.2 on the Noometry Index.
Is GPT-5.2 or OLMo 2 Furious 13B better for coding?
GPT-5.2 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 52.2 versus 28.1 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do GPT-5.2 and OLMo 2 Furious 13B share?
0 benchmarks have published results for both models. GPT-5.2 has 67 scored results on Noometry and OLMo 2 Furious 13B has 12.