# GPT-5.2 vs Grok 4.7

> GPT-5.2 and Grok 4.7 score almost the same on the Noometry Index (54.1 vs 53.1), so choose on price, context window or the category you care about most.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/gpt-5-2-vs-grok-4-7
- Last updated: 2026-10-10
- Shared benchmarks: 31

## Summary

- They share 31 benchmarks with published results for both. GPT-5.2 scores higher in 7 categories and Grok 4.7 in 3 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in multimodal, where GPT-5.2 leads 51.3 to 35.5.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is ProofBench: 15% for GPT-5.2 and 34% for Grok 4.7.
- Grok 4.7 is cheaper at $2 / $6 per million input/output tokens, against $1.75 / $14 for GPT-5.2.
- Grok 4.7 accepts more context: 500K tokens versus 400K.

## Snapshot

| | GPT-5.2 | Grok 4.7 |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | OpenAI | xAI |
| Noometry Index | 54.1 | 53.1 |
| Rank | 34 | 37 |
| Context | 400K | 500K |
| Input $/M | $1.75 | $2 |
| Output $/M | $14 | $6 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |

## Coding

- GPT-5.2: 51.6 (#37)
- Grok 4.7: 58.0 (#18)

| Benchmark | GPT-5.2 | Grok 4.7 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena WebDev | 1416 | 1639 |
| LMArena Coding | 1447 | 1427 |
| SWE-bench Verified | 73.8% | — |
| FrontierCode | — | 47.6% |
| SWE-bench Verified (bash only) | 72.8% | — |
| CursorBench | — | 46.3% |
| SWE-bench Multilingual | 66.7% | — |
| FrontierSWE | — | 29.5% |
| SciCode | — | 57.8% |
| GSO | 27.4% | — |
| WeirdML | 72.2% | — |
| ALE-Bench | 1,294 | — |
| AlgoTune | 2.05 | — |

## Agentic & Tool Use

- GPT-5.2: 40.2 (#24)
- Grok 4.7: 36.7 (#37)

| Benchmark | GPT-5.2 | Grok 4.7 |
|---|---|---|
| Vending-Bench 2 | 3,591 | 10,537 |
| Terminal-Bench | 64.9% | — |
| APEX-Agents | — | 54.6% |
| 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% | — |
| GDP.pdf | — | 22.8% |
| LMArena Search | 1207 | — |
| METR Time Horizons | 75.3% | — |

## Reasoning

- GPT-5.2: 50.2 (#35)
- Grok 4.7: 49.1 (#40)

| Benchmark | GPT-5.2 | Grok 4.7 |
|---|---|---|
| NYT Connections (extended) | 83.6% | 76.8% |
| Chess Puzzles | 49% | 38% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1445 | 1413 |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 23% | 29% |
| DTBench | 90.9% | 96% |
| LMCA | 43.9% | 49.4% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 153.45 | 153.53 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 52.9% | — |
| SimpleBench | 45.8% | — |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 73.3% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 86.2% | — |
| CritPt | — | 18% |
| EnigmaEval | 10.4% | — |
| EBR-Bench | 23% | — |
| ForecastBench | 60.1 | — |

## Math

- GPT-5.2: 60.0 (#38)
- Grok 4.7: 57.8 (#39)

| Benchmark | GPT-5.2 | Grok 4.7 |
|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 67.4% | 53% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 31.7% | 17.1% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 96.1% | 98.1% |
| ProofBench | 15% | 34% |
| LMArena Math | 1440 | 1407 |
| MathArena Final-Answer Competitions | 72% | — |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 40.7% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | 18.8% | — |

## Knowledge

- GPT-5.2: 59.3 (#32)
- Grok 4.7: 62.8 (#22)

| Benchmark | GPT-5.2 | Grok 4.7 |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 91.4% | 92.7% |
| SimpleQA Verified | 37.1% | 56% |
| LMArena Expert | 1445 | 1422 |
| Humanity's Last Exam | 27.8% | — |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 8.4% | — |

## Multimodal

- GPT-5.2: 51.3 (#7)
- Grok 4.7: 35.5 (#87)

| Benchmark | GPT-5.2 | Grok 4.7 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1268 | 1228 |
| Furniture Assembly | 38.3% | 20.8% |
| VPCT | 84% | — |
| Blueprint-Bench 2 | — | 32.5% |
| LMArena Document | 1405 | — |

## Multilingual

- GPT-5.2: 53.4 (#67)
- Grok 4.7: 50.8 (#116)

| Benchmark | GPT-5.2 | Grok 4.7 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1425 | 1389 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1460 | 1455 |
| LMArena French | 1455 | 1455 |
| LMArena Russian | 1440 | 1397 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1433 | 1400 |
| LMArena German | 1448 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1420 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1392 | — |

## Instruction Following

- GPT-5.2: 74.7 (#89)
- Grok 4.7: 74.1 (#105)

| Benchmark | GPT-5.2 | Grok 4.7 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1417 | 1404 |

## Long Context

- GPT-5.2: 44.0 (#78)
- Grok 4.7: 43.1 (#104)

| Benchmark | GPT-5.2 | Grok 4.7 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1428 | 1413 |
| CL-bench | 18.2% | — |

## Writing & Preference

- GPT-5.2: 66.8 (#32)
- Grok 4.7: 70.0 (#24)

| Benchmark | GPT-5.2 | Grok 4.7 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1439 | 1399 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1401 | 1391 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1703 | 2007 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1458 | 1393 |

## FAQ

### Is GPT-5.2 better than Grok 4.7?

GPT-5.2 and Grok 4.7 score almost the same on the Noometry Index (54.1 vs 53.1), so choose on price, context window or the category you care about most.

### Which is cheaper, GPT-5.2 or Grok 4.7?

Grok 4.7 is cheaper. It lists at $2 per million input tokens and $6 per million output tokens; GPT-5.2 lists at $1.75 and $14.

### Is GPT-5.2 or Grok 4.7 better for coding?

Grok 4.7 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 58.0 versus 51.6 in the Noometry coding category.

### Which has the bigger context window?

Grok 4.7 does, with 500K tokens against 400K.

### How many benchmarks do GPT-5.2 and Grok 4.7 share?

31 benchmarks have published results for both models. GPT-5.2 has 67 scored results on Noometry and Grok 4.7 has 39.