GPT-5.2vsQwen3.6
GPT-5.2 | Qwen3.6 | |
|---|---|---|
| Specifications | ||
Parameters | — | 35B |
Context window | — | 256k |
| Benchmarks | ||
Nonsense detection BullshitBench v2Given 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% | — |
Agentic coding SWE-Bench ProCan the AI fix real bugs in real software? It's handed actual problems from open-source projects and has to write code that genuinely solves them. Higher is better. | — | 49.5% |
Coding SWE-Bench VerifiedReal 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%Best | 73.4% |
Multilingual coding SWE-Bench MultilingualLike SWE-Bench, but the coding problems span many programming languages, not just one. Tests how broadly the AI can code. Higher is better. | — | 67.2% |
Agentic terminal coding Terminal-Bench 2.0Can the AI work in a command-line terminal — running commands and finishing technical setup tasks the way a developer would? (Version 2.0 of the test.) Higher is better. | — | 51.5% |
Multidisciplinary reasoning Humanity's Last Exam · no toolsHumanity's Last Exam — extremely hard expert questions across many subjects, written so you can't just look up the answer. “No tools” means the AI answers on its own. Higher is better. | — | 21.4% |
Abstract reasoning ARC-AGI-2Puzzle-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% | — |
Science GPQA DiamondGraduate-level science questions in biology, physics, and chemistry — hard enough that subject-matter PhDs score around 65%. Higher is better. | 92.4%Best | 86% |
Chart reasoning CharXiv ReasoningCan the AI read and reason about complex charts and figures, not just text? Higher is better. | — | 78% |
Multimodal reasoning MMMU-ProA tougher version of MMMU — college-level questions that mix images, diagrams, and text together. Higher is better. | — | 75.3% |
Multimodal MMMUTests the AI on understanding images and text together across many college subjects. Higher is better. | — | 81.7% |
Community preference Arena Elo (Text)Real people chat with two anonymous AIs side by side and vote for the answer they prefer. Votes become a chess-style Elo rating on arena.ai — it measures which AI people actually like, not test scores. Higher is better. | 1476 | — |
Community preference (code) Arena Elo (Code)Like the text arena, but people vote on which AI writes better code. The votes become a chess-style Elo rating on arena.ai. Higher is better. | 1419 | — |
| Overview | ||
| Company | OpenAI | Qwen |
| Release date | Dec 11 2025 | Apr 16 2026 |
| Access | Proprietary | Open Weight |
Which is better: GPT-5.2 or Qwen3.6?
GPT-5.2 leads Qwen3.6 on 2 of the 2 benchmarks they both report (SWE-Bench Verified, GPQA Diamond). GPT-5.2 shipped 126 days before Qwen3.6, so benchmark comparisons should account for the intervening progress.
GPT-5.2 is proprietary, while Qwen3.6 is open weight.
On SWE-Bench Verified, GPT-5.2 leads at 80% vs Qwen3.6 at 73.4%. On GPQA Diamond, GPT-5.2 leads at 92.4% vs Qwen3.6 at 86%.
Frequently asked questions
GPT-5.2 was released by OpenAI on Dec 11 2025.
Qwen3.6 was released by Qwen on Apr 16 2026.
GPT-5.2 leads on SWE-Bench Verified — GPT-5.2 80% vs Qwen3.6 73.4%.
GPT-5.2 leads on GPQA Diamond — GPT-5.2 92.4% vs Qwen3.6 86%.
GPT-5.2 is a proprietary model released by OpenAI. Qwen3.6 is an open weight model released by Qwen.