GPT-5.2 vs Qwen3 30B A3B 2507 Thinking
Wins 7 of 7 areas
Coding · Agents · Reasoning · Facts · Math · Long documents · Following instructions
Wins 0 of 7 areas
—
GPT-5.2 is the stronger all-rounder.Qwen3 30B A3B 2507 Thinking is cheaper.
Scores updated · 24 tests both models report · How we compare
Where each one wins
Tests won in each of the seven areas where both have results. Each piece is one test, so a longer bar means more evidence; grey means the two scored within a point of each other.
- CodingWriting and fixing software30GPT-5.23 of 3 tests
- AgentsCarrying out multi-step tasks on its own30GPT-5.23 of 3 tests
- ReasoningHard problems that need careful thinking30GPT-5.23 of 3 tests
- FactsGetting facts right instead of making them up20GPT-5.22 of 2 tests
- MathCompetition and research-level math20GPT-5.22 of 2 tests
- Long documentsFinding answers in very long texts10GPT-5.21 of 1 test
- Following instructionsDoing exactly what it is asked10GPT-5.21 of 1 test
Long documents and following instructions rest on a single test each.
What it costs
Prices per million tokens, roughly 750,000 words. The bars show the cost of a million tokens read plus a million written.
Qwen3 30B A3B 2507 Thinking costs 83% less for the same work.
The biggest differences
The tests each model wins by the widest margin, up to three each. Scores are out of 100.
Where GPT-5.2 pulls ahead
- Finds hard-to-locate facts by browsing the webBrowseComp+63.5points ahead
- Fixes real GitHub issues in Python projectsSWE-bench Verified+58points ahead
- Hard command-line tasks in a real terminalTerminal-Bench Hard+41.7points ahead
Where Qwen3 30B A3B 2507 Thinking pulls ahead
No clear win on a test scored out of 100.
Every test, side by side
All 24 tests both models report. The winning score is in its model's colour; marks a score checked independently.
CodingGPT-5.2
- SWE-bench VerifiedGPT-5.2 by 588022+58
- Terminal-Bench HardGPT-5.2 by 41.7475.3+41.7
- SciCodeGPT-5.2 by 19.152.133+19.1
AgentsGPT-5.2
- BrowseCompGPT-5.2 by 63.565.82.3+63.5
- GDPValGPT-5.2 by 48.348.30+48.3
- τ-Bench V3 · BankingGPT-5.2 by 5.711.15.4+5.7
ReasoningGPT-5.2
- Humanity's Last ExamGPT-5.2 by 27.437.710.3+27.4
- GPQA DiamondGPT-5.2 by 19.690.370.7+19.6
- CritPtGPT-5.2 by 11.311.60.3+11.3
FactsGPT-5.2
- AA-Omniscience · AccuracyGPT-5.2 by 2844.316.3+28
- AA-Omniscience · Non-hallucinationGPT-5.2 by 5.318.813.5+5.3
MathGPT-5.2
- HMMT Feb. 2026GPT-5.2 by 18.29778.8+18.2
- AIME 2026GPT-5.2 by 1098.388.3+10
Other results9 tests, not counted
Tests outside the eight areas. They are not counted above: several are summary scores built from other tests, or the same test under another name.
- τ²-Bench Telecom (AA run)GPT-5.2 by 56.784.828.1+56.7
- AA-OmniscienceGPT-5.2 by 55.2-0.9-56.1+55.2
- τ²-BenchGPT-5.2 by 36.585.549+36.5
- AIME25 no toolsGPT-5.2 by 26.39871.7+26.3
- τ²-Bench (Retail)GPT-5.2 by 25.98256.1+25.9
- AA IntelligenceGPT-5.2 by 20.630.49.8+20.6
- GPQA (unspecified)GPT-5.2 by 1992.473.4+19
- AIME 2025GPT-5.2 by 1510085+15
- MMLU-ProGPT-5.2 by 4.886.781.9+4.8
Questions people ask
Which is better, GPT-5.2 or Qwen3 30B A3B 2507 Thinking?
GPT-5.2 wins all seven areas where both have results: coding, agents, reasoning, facts, math, long documents and following instructions. Qwen3 30B A3B 2507 Thinking wins none, but costs 83% less.
Which is better for coding?
GPT-5.2. It wins 3 of the 3 coding tests both models report; Qwen3 30B A3B 2507 Thinking wins none.
Which is cheaper?
GPT-5.2 costs $1.75 per million input tokens and $14.00 per million output tokens; Qwen3 30B A3B 2507 Thinking costs $0.20 and $2.40. That makes Qwen3 30B A3B 2507 Thinking about 83% cheaper for the same work.
How do you compare the two?
We use the 24 benchmark tests both models have published scores on. The verdict counts the 15 tests in the eight capability areas, and a gap under one point (ten on rating-style scales) counts as a tie. The other 9 are listed but not counted, because several are summary scores or repeat a test. Each score is the one shown on the model's own page.