Head-to-head
GPT-5.2 vs Claude Opus 4.5: which AI model wins in 2026?
GPT-5.2 ($14/1M out) and Claude Opus 4.5 ($25/1M out) are two of the most-used AI models in 2026. Across 2 community votes, GPT-5.2 leads with 50% approval.
Quick verdict
On Reasoning, pick GPT-5.2: the arena rates it 4/5 against 3.5/5 for Claude Opus 4.5. On budget, GPT-5.2 wins: it starts at $14/1M out versus $25/1M out for Claude Opus 4.5.
Line-by-line comparison
Strengths and weaknesses
GPT-5.2
- 80.0% SWE-bench Verified and 55.6% SWE-Bench Pro at launch, near parity with Claude Opus 4.5 (80.9%)
- GDPval: ties or beats human professionals in 70.9% of comparisons, nearly double GPT-5.1's 38.8%
- Strong science and math: 92.4% GPQA Diamond (Thinking, 93.2% Pro) and 40.3% FrontierMath, state of the art at release
- 400K context with near-perfect MRCR v2 long-context retrieval up to 256K tokens
- 30% fewer hallucinations than GPT-5.1 (error rate on real ChatGPT queries down from 8.8% to 6.2%)
- Cheaper than its successors: $1.75/$14 per 1M vs $2.50/$15 (GPT-5.4) and $5/$30 (GPT-5.5)
- Speed is the top community complaint: extended thinking reported as low as ~4 tokens/s in ChatGPT, and Pro can think for a very long time and still fail
- Headline benchmark scores were obtained at xhigh reasoning effort, which consumes far more tokens and time than default settings
- Widely criticized personality regression vs GPT-5.1: Reddit users called it 'too corporate, too safe' and 'a step backwards' for chat and writing
- Coding lags Anthropic's line in head-to-head Elo comparisons (a later Opus 4.7 analysis cited a 144 Elo gap); no audio modality, no fine-tuning
- Already superseded as of mid-2026: OpenAI recommends GPT-5.5 and GPT-5.2 no longer appears on the main API pricing page
Claude Opus 4.5
- First model past 80% on SWE-bench Verified (80.9% at launch), beating Gemini 3 Pro and GPT-5.1 on real-world coding
- 66% price cut vs Opus 4.1 ($5/$25 vs $15/$75 per 1M tokens) made Opus-tier viable for production workloads
- 48-76% fewer output tokens than Sonnet 4.5 at matched or better quality, compounding the price cut
- Effort parameter (introduced with this model) lets devs trade reasoning depth for cost and latency per call
- Strong hands-on reports: one-shot complex refactors, caught race conditions other models missed, converged in ~4 agentic iterations vs ~10 for rivals
- +29% on Vending-Bench vs Sonnet 4.5, with fewer dead-ends on long-horizon autonomous tasks
- 200K context window only (64K max output), far behind the 1M of Gemini 3 Pro and later Claude models; users reported selective attention above ~70% context fill
- Gated to $100-200/month Max tiers in Claude apps at launch; Pro subscribers were locked out and heavy users still hit limits (HN called it 'penny-wise and pound-foolish')
- Moderate latency; extended thinking adds cost and delay on simple tasks
- Superseded since early 2026: Opus 4.6/4.7/4.8 cost the same $5/$25 with 1M context and higher benchmarks, leaving 4.5 no price advantage
- Legacy API surface: manual budget_tokens extended thinking rather than the adaptive thinking of newer Claude models
Cast your verdict
One recommendation per tool per gladiator. It reshapes the crowd score everyone sees.
The arena’s verdict on GPT-5.2
Pick GPT-5.2 over GPT-5.1 for heavy reasoning, long-context, or agentic work: it nearly doubles GPT-5.1's GDPval win rate, cuts hallucinations 30%, and handles 400K contexts reliably. In mid-2026 it is mainly a value play, priced at $1.75/$14 versus $5/$30 for GPT-5.5 while staying competent on most professional tasks. Avoid it for latency-sensitive chat and creative writing, where users found it slow and flatter than GPT-5.1. Teams that want OpenAI's current frontier should pay up for GPT-5.5 instead.
The arena’s verdict on Claude Opus 4.5
Pick Claude Opus 4.5 only if you have a workload already tuned and pinned to this snapshot (claude-opus-4-5-20251101) and need stability. It was a landmark release, the first past 80% on SWE-bench Verified and a 66% price cut over Opus 4.1, but Anthropic now sells Opus 4.6 through 4.8 at the identical $5/$25 rate with a 1M context window and better scores. Anyone starting a new project should choose Opus 4.8 instead, and cost-sensitive users get near-Opus coding from Sonnet 5 at $3/$15 (intro $2/$10 through Aug 2026). Avoid it entirely if your prompts approach the 200K context ceiling.
What the crowd says
On GPT-5.2
“The thinking speed is brutal, I clocked something like 4 tok/s in ChatGPT on extended thinking. Pro will grind for ages and still whiff. Great scores, painful to actually use.”
“GDPval numbers are wild, it ties or beats human pros in 71% of comparisons. For science and math work (92.4 GPQA Diamond) it earned a spot in my stack.”
On Claude Opus 4.5
No verdicts yet. Be the first to speak.
Keep comparing
Frequently asked questions
Is GPT-5.2 better than Claude Opus 4.5?
On Reasoning, GPT-5.2 rates higher (4/5 vs 3.5/5). The right pick depends on your use case. The line-by-line comparison on this page breaks down pricing, key specs and arena ratings.
Which is cheaper, GPT-5.2 or Claude Opus 4.5?
GPT-5.2 is cheaper: it starts at $14/1M out, while Claude Opus 4.5 starts at $25/1M out.
How much do GPT-5.2 and Claude Opus 4.5 cost per 1M tokens?
GPT-5.2: $1.75/1M in per 1M input tokens, $14/1M out per 1M output tokens. Claude Opus 4.5: $5/1M in per 1M input tokens, $25/1M out per 1M output tokens.