GPT-5.2 vs Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
GPT-5.2 
Qwen3.8-Flash-Next Verdict
- GPT-5.2 (xhigh) and Qwen3.8-Flash-Next are level on quality (62.0 vs 61.6).
- GPT-5.2 (xhigh) is stronger in composite, instruction following, long context, maths.
- Qwen3.8-Flash-Next is stronger in agents & tools, coding, knowledge, reasoning, multimodal.
- Qwen3.8-Flash-Next is 21× cheaper ($0.230 vs $4.81 per 1M blended).
| Metric | GPT-5.2 (xhigh) | Qwen3.8-Flash-Next |
|---|---|---|
| BenchLeader Index | 62.0 | 61.6 |
| Agents & tools score | 56.4 | 65.8 |
| Coding score | 63.2 | 71.2 |
| Composite score | 67.6 | 67.4 |
| Instruction following score | 73.4 | – |
| Knowledge score | 57.9 | 59.6 |
| Long context score | 67.8 | 66.3 |
| Maths score | 58.4 | – |
| Reasoning score | 62.8 | 63.4 |
| Multimodal score | – | 64.3 |
| Blended price $/M | $4.81 | $0.230 |
| Output speed | 67 tok/s | 55 tok/s |
| Time to first answer | 94.0 s | 39.0 s |
| Context window | 400k | 256k |
| GPQA Diamond | 91.4% | – |
| FrontierMath Tiers 1–3 | 67.4% | – |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 31.7% | – |
| OTIS Mock AIME | 96.1% | – |
| SimpleQA Verified | 37.1% | – |
| WeirdML | 72.2% | – |
| APEX-Agents | 34.4% | – |
| ProofBench | 15.0% | – |
| LMArena WebDev | – | 1635 |
| LMArena Agent | – | -0.1 |
| LiveBench | – | 76.2% |
| LiveBench Reasoning | – | 87.4% |
| LiveBench Coding | – | 72.5% |
| LiveBench Agentic Coding | – | 61.6% |
| LiveBench Mathematics | – | 85.8% |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | – | 74.2% |
| LiveBench Language | – | 74.6% |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | – | 77.1% |
| AA Intelligence Index | 30.4 | 39.9 |
| IFBench | 75.4% | – |
| AA-LCR | 82.7% | 79.7% |
| MMMU-Pro | – | 79.8% |
| AA-Omniscience | -0.9 | -9.7 |
| Terminal-Bench Hard | 47.0% | – |
| GPQA Diamond (AA) | 90.3% | 92.3% |
| Humanity's Last Exam (AA) | 37.7% | 38.0% |
| SciCode (AA) | – | 50.6% |
| τ²-Bench Telecom (AA) | 84.8% | – |
| AIME (Vals) | 96.9% | – |
| LiveCodeBench | 85.4% | – |
| MMLU-Pro | 86.2% | – |
| LegalBench | 82.8% | – |
| CorpFin | 65.9% | – |
| TaxEval | 75.8% | – |
| MedQA | 94.1% | – |
| MGSM | 94.0% | – |
| SWE-bench (Vals) | 75.8% | – |
| GPQA Diamond (Vals) | 91.7% | – |
| MCP Atlas | 67.6% | – |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 86.2% | – |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 52.9% | – |
| CritPt | 11.6% | 11.1% |
| GDPval (AA) | – | 57.4% |
| τ²-Bench Banking (AA) | – | 45.4% |
| CaseLaw v2 | 66.0% | – |
| MedCode | 49.8% | – |
| MedScribe | 84.4% | – |
| MMMU-Pro (Vals) | 86.7% | – |
| MortgageTax | 67.1% | – |
| SAGE | 49.3% | – |
| Vibe Code Bench v1.1 | 53.5% | – |
| DrugDiscoveryBench | 29.3% | – |
| Chess Puzzles | 49.0% | – |
| EBR-bench | 23.0% | – |
| VPCT | 84.0% | – |
| LMCA | 43.9% | – |
| DTBench | 90.9% | – |
Data as of 2026-09-19. Best configuration of each model; every score links to its source on the model pages.
GPT-5.2 vs Qwen3.8-Flash-Next: questions
- Is GPT-5.2 better than Qwen3.8-Flash-Next?
- GPT-5.2 (xhigh) and Qwen3.8-Flash-Next are level on quality (62.0 vs 61.6). The BenchLeader Index combines every independent quality benchmark; GPT-5.2 (xhigh) is ahead overall as of 2026-09-19, but check the category scores for your use.
- Is GPT-5.2 better than Qwen3.8-Flash-Next for coding?
- Qwen3.8-Flash-Next scores higher in coding (71 vs 63 on the category index, where 50 is average).
- Is GPT-5.2 better than Qwen3.8-Flash-Next for agentic tasks?
- Qwen3.8-Flash-Next scores higher in agentic tasks (66 vs 56 on the category index, where 50 is average).
- Which is cheaper, GPT-5.2 or Qwen3.8-Flash-Next?
- Qwen3.8-Flash-Next is cheaper: $0.230 against $4.81 per million tokens, blended at three input tokens per output token.
- Which is faster, GPT-5.2 or Qwen3.8-Flash-Next?
- GPT-5.2 streams faster: 67 against 55 output tokens per second.
- Which has the larger context window?
- GPT-5.2 accepts more context: 400k against 256k tokens.