Skip to main content
BenchLM
Advertise

Model comparison

GPT-5.2 vs GPT-5.4 nano

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 17 shared benchmark results across 7 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

GPT-5.2
OpenAI
58.43/100
Margin
8.4pts
winning →
66.79/100
4 category wins0 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: GPT-5.2 #64 (Estimated); GPT-5.4 nano #25 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. GPT-5.2 and GPT-5.4 nano share 17 comparable benchmark results. 4 of 8 categories are comparable. 11 results are unique to GPT-5.2; 12 to GPT-5.4 nano.

Updated July 23, 2026
Shared results
17
GPT-5.2 only
11
GPT-5.4 nano only
12
Comparable categories
4 / 8

Pick GPT-5.4 nano if you want the stronger benchmark profile. GPT-5.2 only becomes the better choice if knowledge is the priority.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 17 shared benchmark results across 7 evidence categories; 4 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.

Why this result

GPT-5.4 nano is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 66.79 to 58.43. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.

GPT-5.2 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $1.75 input / $14.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.20 input / $1.25 output per 1M tokens for GPT-5.4 nano. That is roughly 11.2x on output cost alone.

Category breakdown

Exact category averages are shown below. Not measured means BenchLM does not have enough sourced public coverage for that model and category.

Category scores and score margins for GPT-5.2 and GPT-5.4 nano
CategoryGPT-5.2ΔGPT-5.4 nano
KnowledgeGPT-5.292.4Margin← 48.6GPT-5.4 nano43.8
MultimodalGPT-5.280.4Margin← 14.3GPT-5.4 nano66.1
MathGPT-5.235.2Margin← 14.2GPT-5.4 nano21.0
AgenticGPT-5.255.7Margin← 12.8GPT-5.4 nano42.9
CodingGPT-5.270.6MarginNo overlapGPT-5.4 nanoNot measured
ReasoningGPT-5.252.9MarginNo overlapGPT-5.4 nanoNot measured

Decisive benchmark drivers

The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.

More
A · GPT-5.2B · GPT-5.4 nano

  1. FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)

    Math
    Source ↗
    A 40.700%B 25.860%
    Winner: GPT-5.2Δ 14.8
    FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3): GPT-5.2 scored 40.700%; GPT-5.4 nano scored 25.860%. GPT-5.2 wins this benchmark.

  2. MMMU-Pro

    Multimodal
    Source ↗
    A 79.5%B 66.1%
    Winner: GPT-5.2Δ 13.4
    MMMU-Pro: GPT-5.2 scored 79.5%; GPT-5.4 nano scored 66.1%. GPT-5.2 wins this benchmark.

  3. FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)

    Math
    Source ↗
    A 18.800%B 6.250%
    Winner: GPT-5.2Δ 12.6
    FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4): GPT-5.2 scored 18.800%; GPT-5.4 nano scored 6.250%. GPT-5.2 wins this benchmark.

  4. GPQA

    Knowledge
    Source ↗
    A 92.4%B 82.8%
    Winner: GPT-5.2Δ 9.6
    GPQA: GPT-5.2 scored 92.4%; GPT-5.4 nano scored 82.8%. GPT-5.2 wins this benchmark.

  5. OSWorld-Verified

    Agentic
    Source ↗
    A 47.3%B 39%
    Winner: GPT-5.2Δ 8.3
    OSWorld-Verified: GPT-5.2 scored 47.3%; GPT-5.4 nano scored 39%. GPT-5.2 wins this benchmark.

Operational comparison

Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.

MetricGPT-5.2GPT-5.4 nanoComparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensGPT-5.2$1.75 input / $14 outputGPT-5.4 nano$0.2 input / $1.25 outputGPT-5.4 nano has the lower combined listed price.
Generation speedtokens per secondGPT-5.273 tok/sGPT-5.4 nano191 tok/sGPT-5.4 nano has the higher measured throughput.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenGPT-5.2130.34 sGPT-5.4 nano3.64 sGPT-5.4 nano reaches the first token sooner.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensGPT-5.2400KGPT-5.4 nano400KListed context windows are equal.

Benchmark Deep Dive

AgenticGPT-5.2 wins
BenchmarkGPT-5.2GPT-5.4 nanoResult
BrowseCompSource 65.8%—Not comparable
OSWorld-VerifiedSource 47.3%39%GPT-5.2 leads
τ²-bench resultsSource 84.8%76%GPT-5.2 leads
Gert LabsSource 46.54%—Not comparable
JobBenchSource 34.3%—Not comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source —46.3%Not comparable
MCP AtlasSource —56.1%Not comparable
ToolathlonSource —35.5%Not comparable
AA Agentic IndexSource —27.5%Not comparable
APEX-Agents-AASource —24.9%Not comparable
GDPval-AASource —30.0%Not comparable
GDPval-AASource —1100Not comparable
Coding
BenchmarkGPT-5.2GPT-5.4 nanoResult
SWE-bench VerifiedSource 80%—Not comparable
SWE-bench ProSource 55.6%—Not comparable
Vibe Code BenchSource 53.50%26.10%GPT-5.2 leads
AA-SciCodeSource 52.1%46.9%GPT-5.2 leads
AA Coding IndexSource —56.1%Not comparable
Reasoning
BenchmarkGPT-5.2GPT-5.4 nanoResult
ARC-AGI-2Source 52.9%—Not comparable
AA-LCRSource 72.7%66.0%GPT-5.2 leads
CritPtSource 11.6%9.3%GPT-5.2 leads
KnowledgeGPT-5.2 wins
BenchmarkGPT-5.2GPT-5.4 nanoResult
GPQASource 92.4%82.8%GPT-5.2 leads
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource 42.2%38.2%GPT-5.2 leads
AA-GPQA DiamondSource 90.3%81.7%GPT-5.2 leads
AA-HLESource 35.4%26.5%GPT-5.2 leads
AA-Omniscience IndexSource -1.0%-29.5%GPT-5.2 leads
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource 43.8%25.4%GPT-5.2 leads
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource 79.7%73.6%GPT-5.4 nano leads
HLESource —37.7%Not comparable
HLE w/o toolsSource —24.3%Not comparable
MathGPT-5.2 wins
BenchmarkGPT-5.2GPT-5.4 nanoResult
AA AIME 2025Source 99.0%—Not comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source 40.700%25.860%GPT-5.2 leads
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source 18.800%6.250%GPT-5.2 leads
MultimodalGPT-5.2 wins
BenchmarkGPT-5.2GPT-5.4 nanoResult
MMMU-ProSource 79.5%66.1%GPT-5.2 leads
MathVisionSource 83.0%—Not comparable
CharXivSource 82.1%—Not comparable
V*Source 75.9%—Not comparable
Design Arena WebsiteSource 1224—Not comparable
MMMU-Pro w/ PythonSource —69.5%Not comparable
AA-MMMU-ProSource —65.4%Not comparable
Inst. Following
BenchmarkGPT-5.2GPT-5.4 nanoResult
AA-IFBenchSource 75.4%75.9%GPT-5.4 nano leads
Frequently Asked Questions (5)

Which is better, GPT-5.2 or GPT-5.4 nano?

GPT-5.4 nano is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 66.79 to 58.43. The biggest single separator in this matchup is FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3), where the scores are 40.700% and 25.860%.

Which is better for knowledge tasks, GPT-5.2 or GPT-5.4 nano?

GPT-5.2 has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 92.4 versus 43.8. Inside this category, AA-Omniscience Index is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for math, GPT-5.2 or GPT-5.4 nano?

GPT-5.2 has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 35.2 versus 21. Inside this category, FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3) is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for agentic tasks, GPT-5.2 or GPT-5.4 nano?

GPT-5.2 has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 55.7 versus 42.9. Inside this category, τ²-bench results is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for multimodal and grounded tasks, GPT-5.2 or GPT-5.4 nano?

GPT-5.2 has the edge for multimodal and grounded tasks in this comparison, averaging 80.4 versus 66.1. Inside this category, MMMU-Pro is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Related Comparisons

Explore More

OpenAI Compare Pricing Methodology Find Your Best LLM Overall Rankings
Last updated: July 23, 2026

Choose a model with this week’s evidence

Join 2,000+ readers for ranking moves, pricing changes, and the claims that still need proof.

One email each week. Unsubscribe anytime.