GPT-5.2 vs Qwen3.6 27B
Wins 5 of 8 areas
Coding · Reasoning · Math · Long documents · Following instructions
Wins 1 of 8 areas
Images and charts
GPT-5.2 is the stronger all-rounder.Qwen3.6 27B is cheaper and better at images and charts.
Scores updated · 42 tests both models report · How we compare
Where each one wins
Tests won in each of the eight areas we test. Each piece is one test, so a longer bar means more evidence; grey means the two scored within a point of each other.
- MathCompetition and research-level math50GPT-5.25 of 5 tests
- ReasoningHard problems that need careful thinking40GPT-5.24 of 4 tests
- CodingWriting and fixing software52GPT-5.25 of 7 tests
- Following instructionsDoing exactly what it is asked20GPT-5.22 of 2 tests
- Long documentsFinding answers in very long texts10GPT-5.21 of 1 test
- Images and chartsUnderstanding pictures, charts and video13Qwen3.6 27B3 of 5 tests · 1 tie
- AgentsCarrying out multi-step tasks on its own11Even1 each
- FactsGetting facts right instead of making them up11Even1 each
Long documents rests on a single test.
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.
Qwen3.6 27B costs 73% less for the same work.
The biggest differences
The three tests each model wins by the widest margin. Scores are out of 100.
Where GPT-5.2 pulls ahead
- Unpublished advanced math problemsFrontierMath Tiers 1-3 (v2)+32.3points ahead
- Answers hard knowledge questions correctlyAA-Omniscience · Accuracy+24.7points ahead
- Real work tasks from 44 professionsGDPVal+23.9points ahead
Where Qwen3.6 27B pulls ahead
- Avoids making up answers it doesn't knowAA-Omniscience · Non-hallucination+31.9points ahead
- Long, multi-file coding tasks in real codebasesSWE-bench Pro+23.6points ahead
- Reads and reasons about text in imagesOCRBenchv2+17.8points ahead
Every test, side by side
All 42 tests both models report. The winning score is in its model's colour; marks a score checked independently.
CodingGPT-5.2
- SWE-bench ProQwen3.6 27B by 23.629.953.5+23.6
- Terminal-Bench HardGPT-5.2 by 12.24734.8+12.2
- LiveBench · Agentic CodingGPT-5.2 by 1150.339.3+11
- SciCodeGPT-5.2 by 9.352.142.8+9.3
- SWE-bench MultilingualQwen3.6 27B by 4.666.771.3+4.6
- LiveBench · CodingGPT-5.2 by 4.376.171.8+4.3
- SWE-bench VerifiedGPT-5.2 by 2.88077.2+2.8
AgentsEven
- GDPValGPT-5.2 by 23.948.324.4+23.9
- τ-Bench V3 · BankingQwen3.6 27B by 5.611.116.7+5.6
ReasoningGPT-5.2
- Humanity's Last ExamGPT-5.2 by 14.637.723.1+14.6
- LiveBench · ReasoningGPT-5.2 by 12.983.270.3+12.9
- CritPtGPT-5.2 by 10.511.61.1+10.5
- GPQA DiamondGPT-5.2 by 6.190.384.2+6.1
FactsEven
- AA-Omniscience · Non-hallucinationQwen3.6 27B by 31.918.850.7+31.9
- AA-Omniscience · AccuracyGPT-5.2 by 24.744.319.6+24.7
Images and chartsQwen3.6 27B
- OCRBenchv2Qwen3.6 27B by 17.850.568.3+17.8
- OCRBenchQwen3.6 27B by 8.780.789.4+8.7
- MathVistaQwen3.6 27B by 4.682.887.4+4.6
- CharXiv (RQ)GPT-5.2 by 3.782.178.4+3.7
- MMMU-Protie74.674.6tie
MathGPT-5.2
- FrontierMath Tiers 1-3 (v2)GPT-5.2 by 32.367.435.1+32.3
- LiveBench · MathematicsGPT-5.2 by 13.393.279.9+13.3
- HMMT Feb. 2026GPT-5.2 by 12.79784.3+12.7
- IMOAnswerBenchGPT-5.2 by 5.586.380.8+5.5
- AIME 2026GPT-5.2 by 4.298.394.1+4.2
Following instructionsGPT-5.2
- LiveBench · Instruction FollowingGPT-5.2 by 8.661.853.2+8.6
- IFBenchGPT-5.2 by 7.875.467.6+7.8
Other results14 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.
- AA Agentic IndexGPT-5.2 by 40.160.220.1+40.1
- AA-OmniscienceGPT-5.2 by 19.1-0.9-20+19.1
- livebench_languageGPT-5.2 by 16.579.863.3+16.5
- τ²-Bench Telecom (AA run)Qwen3.6 27B by 9.484.894.2+9.4
- AA IntelligenceGPT-5.2 by 930.421.4+9
- HMMT 2025GPT-5.2 by 8.799.490.7+8.7
- livebench_data_analysisGPT-5.2 by 7.878.270.4+7.8
- HMMT Feb. 2025GPT-5.2 by 6.210093.8+6.2
- Terminal-Bench 2.0Qwen3.6 27B by 5.35459.3+5.3
- HMMT Nov. 2025GPT-5.2 by 5.195.890.7+5.1
- Artificial Analysis Coding IndexQwen3.6 27B by 548.753.7+5
- VideoMMMUGPT-5.2 by 1.585.984.4+1.5
- MMLU-Protie86.786.2tie
- SimpleVQAtie55.856.1tie
Questions people ask
Which is better, GPT-5.2 or Qwen3.6 27B?
GPT-5.2 wins five of the eight areas we test: coding, reasoning, math, long documents and following instructions. Qwen3.6 27B wins images and charts, and costs 73% less. They are level on agents and facts.
Which is better for coding?
GPT-5.2. It wins 5 of the 7 coding tests both models report; Qwen3.6 27B wins 2.
Which is cheaper?
GPT-5.2 costs $1.75 per million input tokens and $14.00 per million output tokens; Qwen3.6 27B costs $0.60 and $3.60. That makes Qwen3.6 27B about 73% cheaper for the same work.
How do you compare the two?
We use the 42 benchmark tests both models have published scores on. The verdict counts the 28 tests in the eight capability areas, and a gap under one point (ten on rating-style scales) counts as a tie. The other 14 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.