GPT-5.2vsQwen3.8-Max
GPT-5.2 | Qwen3.8-Max | |
|---|---|---|
| Specifications | ||
Parameters | — | 2.4T |
Context window | — | 1M |
| 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. | — | 67.7% |
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% | — |
Research reproduction PaperBenchreproducing the results of an ML research paper end to end | — | 93% |
Agentic terminal coding Terminal-Bench 2.1Can the AI work in a command-line terminal — running commands and finishing technical setup tasks the way a developer would? Higher is better. | — | 86.6% |
Professional tool use JobBenchTests the AI on professional workplace tasks that require using real work tools — the kind of multi-step jobs an office worker handles. Higher is better. | — | 53.4% |
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% | — |
Agentic computer use OSWorld-VerifiedCan the AI actually operate a computer — clicking, typing, and using real apps — to finish tasks on its own? Higher is better. | — | 86.1% |
Chart reasoning CharXiv ReasoningCan the AI read and reason about complex charts and figures, not just text? Higher is better. | — | 88.4% |
Visual reasoning BabyVisionTests core visual reasoning — seeing and understanding images the way even young children can, which AIs often find surprisingly hard. Higher is better. | — | 82% |
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 | 1497Best |
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 | 1667Best |
| Overview | ||
| Company | OpenAI | Qwen |
| Release date | Dec 11 2025 | Aug 3 2026 |
| Access | Proprietary | Proprietary |
Which is better: GPT-5.2 or Qwen3.8-Max?
Qwen3.8-Max leads GPT-5.2 on 2 of the 2 benchmarks they both report (Arena Elo (Text), Arena Elo (Code)). GPT-5.2 shipped 235 days before Qwen3.8-Max, so benchmark comparisons should account for the intervening progress.
Published specifications for these two models are limited — see each model page for the latest details.
On Arena Elo (Text), Qwen3.8-Max leads at 1497 vs GPT-5.2 at 1476. On Arena Elo (Code), Qwen3.8-Max leads at 1667 vs GPT-5.2 at 1419.
Frequently asked questions
GPT-5.2 was released by OpenAI on Dec 11 2025.
Qwen3.8-Max was released by Qwen on Aug 3 2026.
Other comparisons
GPT-5.2vsClaude Opus 5Qwen3.8-MaxvsClaude Opus 5GPT-5.2vsGemini 3.6 FlashQwen3.8-MaxvsGemini 3.6 FlashGPT-5.2vsMuse Spark 1.2Qwen3.8-MaxvsMuse Spark 1.2GPT-5.2vsGrok 4.5Qwen3.8-MaxvsGrok 4.5GPT-5.2vsDeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731Qwen3.8-MaxvsDeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731GPT-5.2vsMistral Medium 3.5Qwen3.8-MaxvsMistral Medium 3.5