Compare AI models
| Specifications | ||
Context windowHow much information the model can work with in one request, measured in tokens — pieces of words or other data. This includes your question, attachments, conversation and reply. Limits can vary by model variant and provider. | 400k | 32k |
| API pricingUSD per 1M tokens · lower wins | ||
Input priceWhat you pay for everything you send the model — your question, plus any documents or earlier conversation you include with it. | $1.75 | — |
Output priceWhat you pay for the text the model writes back. It is normally the dearer half: producing an answer costs more than reading one. | $14.00 | — |
Cached input priceA reduced rate for text you send over and over. If every request starts with the same instructions or the same document, the provider keeps a copy ready and charges less to read it again. | $0.175 | — |
Cheapest inputLowest input rate across every provider on OpenRouter, the lab included. The cheapest endpoint may run a quantised build or a shorter context — see "Available from" on the model page. | $0.875OpenAI | — |
Cheapest outputLowest output rate across every provider on OpenRouter, the lab included. May come from a different provider than the cheapest input. | $7.00OpenAI | — |
| $1,050OpenAI list price | — | |
| These models have no shared benchmark scores. | ||
BullshitBench v2Nonsense detection — Given a confidently-worded but nonsensical prompt, does the AI spot that it makes no sense and push back — instead of playing along and inventing an answer? The score is how often it clearly called out the nonsense. Higher is better. | 38% | — |
SWE-Bench VerifiedCoding — Real coding tasks pulled from open-source projects — the AI has to find and fix actual bugs. A human-checked version of the original SWE-Bench. Higher is better. | 80% | — |
BrowseCompWeb browsing — Can the AI browse the web and track down hard-to-find answers? Higher is better. | 65.8% | — |
ARC-AGI-2Abstract reasoning — Puzzle-style tests of abstract reasoning and pattern-finding — the kind of thing people find easy but AIs often struggle with. Higher is better. | 52.9% | — |
GPQA DiamondScience — Graduate-level science questions in biology, physics, and chemistry — hard enough that subject-matter PhDs score around 65%. Higher is better. | 92.4% | — |
OSWorld-VerifiedAgentic computer use — Can the AI actually operate a computer — clicking, typing, and using real apps — to finish tasks on its own? Higher is better. | 47.3% | — |
| Overview | ||
| Company | OpenAI | Qwen |
| Release date | Dec 11 2025 | Jan 28 2025 |
| Access | Closed | Closed |
| Model details | View model | View model |
Other comparisons
GPT-5.2vsClaude Haiku 5.5Qwen2.5-MaxvsClaude Haiku 5.5GPT-5.2vsGemini 4 ArgonQwen2.5-MaxvsGemini 4 ArgonGPT-5.2vsMuse Spark OpenQwen2.5-MaxvsMuse Spark OpenGPT-5.2vsGrok 4.7Qwen2.5-MaxvsGrok 4.7GPT-5.2vsDeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017Qwen2.5-MaxvsDeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017GPT-5.2vsMistral Large 4Qwen2.5-MaxvsMistral Large 4Frequently asked questions
GPT-5.2 and Qwen2.5-Max don't publish scores on any of the same benchmarks, so there's no direct head-to-head comparison. Only GPT-5.2 has a verified first-party API price: $1.75 per million input tokens and $14.00 per million output tokens. No pay-as-you-go API rate is tracked for Qwen2.5-Max. Qwen2.5-Max shipped 317 days before GPT-5.2, so benchmark comparisons should account for the intervening progress.
Context windows are 400k (GPT-5.2) vs 32k (Qwen2.5-Max).
Direct benchmark comparisons are unavailable — GPT-5.2 and Qwen2.5-Max don't publish scores on any of the same benchmarks.