# GPT-5.2 vs QwQ-32B

> GPT-5.2 is the stronger model overall, scoring 54.1 to 39.4 on the Noometry Index.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/gpt-5-2-vs-qwq-32b
- Last updated: 2026-10-10
- Shared benchmarks: 23

## Summary

- They share 23 benchmarks with published results for both. GPT-5.2 scores higher in 7 categories and QwQ-32B in 1 category; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in reasoning, where GPT-5.2 leads 50.1 to 22.9.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is Chess Puzzles: 49% for GPT-5.2 and 5% for QwQ-32B.
- QwQ-32B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

## Snapshot

| | GPT-5.2 | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | OpenAI | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 54.1 | 39.4 |
| Rank | 31 | 153 |
| Context | 400K | — |
| Input $/M | $1.75 | — |
| Output $/M | $14 | — |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |

## Coding

- GPT-5.2: 52.2 (#32)
- QwQ-32B: 34.9 (#220)

| Benchmark | GPT-5.2 | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1447 | 1333 |
| SWE-bench Verified | 73.8% | — |
| SWE-bench Verified (bash only) | 72.8% | — |
| Aider Polyglot | — | 20.9% |
| LMArena WebDev | 1415 | — |
| SWE-bench Multilingual | 66.7% | — |
| GSO | 27.4% | — |
| WeirdML | 72.2% | — |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | — | 44.6% |
| LiveBench Coding | — | 72.2% |
| BigCodeBench Complete | — | 54.4% |
| ALE-Bench | 1,294 | — |
| AlgoTune | 2.05 | — |

## Agentic & Tool Use

- GPT-5.2: 40.0 (#24)
- QwQ-32B: —

| Benchmark | GPT-5.2 | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| 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: 50.1 (#33)
- QwQ-32B: 22.9 (#171)

| Benchmark | GPT-5.2 | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| Chess Puzzles | 49% | 5% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1445 | 1326 |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 153.45 | 137.6 |
| ForecastBench | 60.1 | 58.3 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 52.9% | — |
| SimpleBench | 45.8% | — |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 73.3% | — |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 83.6% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 86.2% | — |
| EnigmaEval | 10.4% | — |
| EBR-Bench | 23% | — |
| LiveBench Reasoning | — | 83.5% |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 23% | — |
| DTBench | 90.9% | — |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | — | 65% |
| LMCA | 43.9% | — |
| LiveBench | — | 72% |

## Math

- GPT-5.2: 59.8 (#32)
- QwQ-32B: 36.2 (#123)

| Benchmark | GPT-5.2 | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 96.1% | 59.2% |
| LMArena Math | 1439 | 1359 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 67.4% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 31.7% | — |
| MathArena Final-Answer Competitions | 72% | — |
| ProofBench | 15% | — |
| LiveBench Math | — | 77.8% |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 40.7% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | 18.8% | — |

## Knowledge

- GPT-5.2: 59.2 (#29)
- QwQ-32B: 37.2 (#150)

| Benchmark | GPT-5.2 | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 91.4% | 65.3% |
| LMArena Expert | 1445 | 1323 |
| Humanity's Last Exam | 27.8% | — |
| SimpleQA Verified | 37.1% | — |
| Confabulations | — | 15.6% |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 8.4% | — |

## Multimodal

- GPT-5.2: 50.9 (#7)
- QwQ-32B: —

| Benchmark | GPT-5.2 | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1268 | — |
| VPCT | 84% | — |
| Furniture Assembly | 38.3% | — |
| LMArena Document | 1405 | — |

## Multilingual

- GPT-5.2: 53.6 (#63)
- QwQ-32B: 45.0 (#171)

| Benchmark | GPT-5.2 | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1425 | 1306 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1460 | 1378 |
| LMArena French | 1456 | 1337 |
| LMArena German | 1448 | 1313 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1421 | 1263 |
| LMArena Korean | 1390 | 1278 |
| LMArena Russian | 1440 | 1297 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1433 | 1353 |

## Instruction Following

- GPT-5.2: 74.9 (#83)
- QwQ-32B: 72.8 (#131)

| Benchmark | GPT-5.2 | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1417 | 1297 |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | — | 81.8% |

## Long Context

- GPT-5.2: 44.0 (#74)
- QwQ-32B: 49.0 (#11)

| Benchmark | GPT-5.2 | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1428 | 1308 |
| Fiction.LiveBench | — | 83.3% |
| CL-bench | 18.2% | — |

## Writing & Preference

- GPT-5.2: 67.0 (#30)
- QwQ-32B: 50.9 (#175)

| Benchmark | GPT-5.2 | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1439 | 1329 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1402 | 1288 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1703 | 1257 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1458 | 1314 |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | — | 80.2% |
| LiveBench Language | — | 51.4% |

## FAQ

### Is GPT-5.2 better than QwQ-32B?

GPT-5.2 is the stronger model overall, scoring 54.1 to 39.4 on the Noometry Index.

### Is GPT-5.2 or QwQ-32B better for coding?

GPT-5.2 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 52.2 versus 34.9 in the Noometry coding category.

### How many benchmarks do GPT-5.2 and QwQ-32B share?

23 benchmarks have published results for both models. GPT-5.2 has 67 scored results on Noometry and QwQ-32B has 36.