GPT-5.2 vs Qwen3.7 Max
At a Glance
| Compare |  GPT-5.2OpenAI |  Qwen3.7 MaxQwen |
|---|---|---|
| Intelligence, Cost, and Efficiency | ||
| IntelligenceHigher is better · MM Intelligence v2.5 | #33 of 4649.3 score · 3/3 sources · complete | UnrankedNot in the 46-model eligible cohort |
| CostLower is better · Published-token output estimate | #28 of 44$0.161 per LiveBench case | #13 of 44$0.057 per LiveBench case |
| EfficiencyHigher is better · MM Efficiency v1.5 | #34 of 3844.0 score · 3/3 sources · complete | UnrankedNot in the 38-model eligible cohort |
| Pricing and Limits | ||
| Input priceFrom · USD / 1M tokens | $1.75Openai ↗ · Sep 3, 2026 | $1.475Openrouter ↗ · Sep 22, 2026 |
| Output priceFrom · USD / 1M tokens | $14.00Openai ↗ · Sep 3, 2026 | $4.425Openrouter ↗ · Sep 22, 2026 |
| Context windowMaximum documented tokens | 400K | 1,000K |
| Model facts checked | Sep 3, 2026View model evidence → | Sep 3, 2026View model evidence → |
Token prices are the lowest available sourced USD rates; input and output may use different providers. Cost ranking estimates output spend on LiveBench, not a full request bill. Ranking methodology →
Available Benchmarks
| Benchmark | GPT-5.2 | Qwen3.7 Max |
|---|---|---|
| LiveBench2026-06-25 · overall · leader | 79.21100% of row best · percent · gpt-5.2-2025-12-11-high · 11,512 output tokens / case | 77.5098% of row best · percent · qwen3.7-max · 12,909 output tokens / case |
| ToneBench2026-09-11-10-task-4ef099199c9c · overall_score · unverified | 78.0896% of row best · points · GPT-5.2 · 4,266 output tokens / case | 81.26100% of row best · points · Qwen3.7 Max (default) · 8,636 output tokens / case |
| Overall ResultCounted from the protocol-matched rows above | 1 benchmark winNo overall winner | 0 benchmark winsNo overall winner |
Third-party benchmark Only like-for-like primary-publisher results are shown; raw scores, relative scores, configuration, and token spend remain visible.
Side-by-Side Facts
| Field | GPT-5.2 | Qwen3.7 Max |
|---|---|---|
| Developer | OpenAI | Qwen |
| Family | Gpt 5 2 | Qwen3 7 |
| Model | GPT-5.2 | Qwen3.7 Max |
| Version | GPT-5.2 | Qwen3.7 Max |
| Lifecycle | active | active |
| Released | 2025-12-11 | 2026-05-20 |
| Knowledge cutoff | 2025-08-31 | Unknown |
| Input modalities | Text, Image | Text, Image, Video |
| Output modalities | Text | Text |
| Context window | 400K | 1,000K |
| Total parameters | Unknown | Unknown |
| Active parameters | Unknown | Unknown |
| License | Unknown | Unknown |
| Open weights | No | No |
| API available | Yes | Yes |
| Self-hostable | No | No |
| Provider access | Openai (Standard), Openrouter (Standard) | Alibaba Cloud Model Studio (Standard), Deepinfra (Standard), Openrouter (Standard), Together Ai (Standard) |
| Capabilities | chat, generation, reasoning, structured_outputs, tools | agents, chat, generation, reasoning, structured_outputs, tools, vision |
GPT-5.2 Capabilities
Qwen3.7 Max Capabilities
Related Comparisons
All image comparisons →| A | Pair | B | Context |
|---|---|---|---|
GPT-5.2OpenAI | vs | GPT-6 AstraOpenAI | family variantsimage, text |
Claude Fable 5.1Anthropic | vs | GPT-5.2OpenAI | cross-developer peersimage, text |
 Gemini 3.1 ProGoogle DeepMind | vs | GPT-5.2OpenAI | cross-developer peerstext |
 DeepSeek-V4.1-FlashDeepSeek | vs | GPT-5.2OpenAI | cross-developer peersimage, text |
GPT-5.2OpenAI | vs | Grok 4.6xAI | cross-developer peersimage, text |
GPT-5.2OpenAI | vs | Qwen3.8-MaxQwen | cross-developer peersimage, text |
 Kimi-K3Moonshot AI | vs | GPT-5.2OpenAI | cross-developer peersimage, text |
 MiniMax-M3MiniMax | vs | GPT-5.2OpenAI | cross-developer peersimage, text |
GPT-5.2OpenAI | vs |  GLM-5.3Z.ai | cross-developer peerstext |
GPT-5.2OpenAI | vs |  Hy4 previewTencent | cross-developer peerstext |
Seed 2.1 ProByteDance Seed | vs | GPT-5.2OpenAI | cross-developer peersimage, text |
 Mistral Large 3Mistral AI | vs | GPT-5.2OpenAI | cross-developer peersimage, text |
Primary Evidence
Sources and Freshness
Questions
GPT-5.2 vs Qwen3.7 Max FAQs
Is GPT-5.2 or Qwen3.7 Max better for coding?+
This comparison does not currently contain a protocol-matched coding benchmark for both GPT-5.2 and Qwen3.7 Max, so Model Markets cannot name a coding leader from pricing, context size, or capability labels alone.
Which is cheaper, GPT-5.2 or Qwen3.7 Max?+
GPT-5.2 is $1.75 and Qwen3.7 Max is $1.475 per million tokens, so Qwen3.7 Max is cheaper on this metric. GPT-5.2 is $14.00 and Qwen3.7 Max is $4.425 per million tokens, so Qwen3.7 Max is cheaper on this metric.
Which has a larger context window, GPT-5.2 or Qwen3.7 Max?+
Qwen3.7 Max has the larger sourced context window. GPT-5.2 supports 400K and Qwen3.7 Max supports 1,000K.
Which performs better in benchmarks, GPT-5.2 or Qwen3.7 Max?+
There is no overall benchmark winner: At least two independently verified, protocol-matched benchmarks are required for an overall winner.
Can GPT-5.2 or Qwen3.7 Max be self-hosted?+
Both models have the same recorded self-hosting status: unsupported. GPT-5.2 is not marked open weight; Qwen3.7 Max is not marked open weight.
Can GPT-5.2 and Qwen3.7 Max understand images?+
GPT-5.2 is documented with image input; Qwen3.7 Max is documented with image input. This reflects supported input modalities, not vision quality.
Which can generate longer answers, GPT-5.2 or Qwen3.7 Max?+
GPT-5.2 has the larger sourced maximum output: GPT-5.2 supports 128K and Qwen3.7 Max supports 66K output tokens.
Do GPT-5.2 and Qwen3.7 Max support reasoning and tool use?+
GPT-5.2: reasoning, tool calling, and image input. Qwen3.7 Max: reasoning, tool calling, and image input. Feature support does not establish relative quality.
Which is available from more inference providers, GPT-5.2 or Qwen3.7 Max?+
GPT-5.2 has 2 sourced provider routes; Qwen3.7 Max has 4, so Qwen3.7 Max has broader tracked availability.
Which offers better value, GPT-5.2 or Qwen3.7 Max?+
There is no universal value winner. Compare the input and output prices above with the matched benchmark result for your workload: cheaper tokens can be offset by different quality, token usage, latency, or provider availability.