| Signal | GPT-4o-mini | Delta | GPT-5.2 Chat |
|---|---|---|---|
Capabilities | 67 | -17 | |
Benchmarks | 77 | +0 | |
Pricing | 99 | +13 | |
Context window size | 81 | -- | |
Recency | 19 | -81 | |
Output Capacity | 70 | -- | |
| Overall Result | 2 wins | of 6 | 2 wins |
Score History
77
current score
GPT-5.2 Chat
right now
77.6
current score
OpenAI
OpenAI
GPT-4o-mini saves you $830.00/month
That's $9960.00/year compared to GPT-5.2 Chat at your current usage level of 100K calls/month.
| Metric | GPT-4o-mini | GPT-5.2 Chat | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall Score | 77 | 78 | GPT-5.2 Chat |
| Rank | #30 | #28 | GPT-5.2 Chat |
| Quality Rank | #30 | #28 | GPT-5.2 Chat |
| Adoption Rank | #30 | #28 | GPT-5.2 Chat |
| Parameters | -- | -- | -- |
| Context Window | 128K | 128K | -- |
| Pricing | $0.15/$0.60/M | $1.75/$14.00/M | -- |
| Signal Scores | |||
| Capabilities | 67 | 83 | GPT-5.2 Chat |
| Benchmarks | 77 | 77 | GPT-4o-mini |
| Pricing | 99 | 86 | GPT-4o-mini |
| Context window size | 81 | 81 | GPT-4o-mini |
| Recency | 19 | 100 | GPT-5.2 Chat |
| Output Capacity | 70 | 70 | GPT-4o-mini |
Our score (0-100) is driven by benchmark performance (90%) from Arena Elo ratings, MMLU, GPQA, HumanEval, SWE-bench, and 15+ standardized evaluations. Capabilities and context window serve as tiebreakers (10%). Here's what the scores mean for these two models:
Scores 77/100 (rank #30), placing it in the top 90% of all 290 models tracked.
Scores 78/100 (rank #28), placing it in the top 91% of all 290 models tracked.
With only a 1-point gap, these models are in the same performance tier. The practical difference in output quality is minimal - your choice should depend on pricing, latency requirements, and specific feature needs.
GPT-4o-mini offers 95% better value per quality point. At 1M tokens/day, you'd spend $11.25/month with GPT-4o-mini vs $236.25/month with GPT-5.2 Chat - a $225.00 monthly difference.
Both models have comparable response speeds. For most applications, the latency difference is negligible.
When latency matters most: Interactive chatbots, IDE code completion, real-time translation, and user-facing applications where response time directly impacts experience. For batch processing, background summarization, or offline analysis, latency is less critical.
Code generation & review
Higher benchmark score (0/100) indicates stronger performance on coding tasks like generating functions, debugging, and refactoring
Customer support chatbot
Faster response time (speed score 0/100) is critical for user-facing chat. GPT-4o-mini also offers lower per-token costs for high-volume support
Long document analysis
Larger context window (128K tokens) can process longer documents, contracts, and research papers in a single pass
Batch data extraction
Lower output pricing ($0.60/M) reduces costs when processing thousands of records daily
Creative writing & content
Higher overall composite score (78/100) correlates with better nuance, coherence, and style in long-form content
Image understanding & OCR
Supports vision input - can analyze screenshots, diagrams, photos, and scanned documents directly
GPT-4o-mini and GPT-5.2 Chat are extremely close in overall performance (only 0.5999999999999943 points apart). Your best choice depends entirely on which specific strengths matter most for your use case.
Best for Quality
GPT-4o-mini
Marginally better benchmark scores; both are excellent
Best for Cost
GPT-4o-mini
95% lower pricing; better value at scale
Best for Reliability
GPT-4o-mini
Higher uptime and faster response speeds
Best for Prototyping
GPT-4o-mini
Stronger community support and better developer experience
Best for Production
GPT-4o-mini
Wider enterprise adoption and proven at scale
by OpenAI
| Capability | GPT-4o-mini | GPT-5.2 Chat |
|---|---|---|
| Vision (Image Input) | ||
| Function Calling | ||
| Streaming | ||
| JSON Mode | ||
| Reasoning | ||
| Web Searchdiffers | ||
| Image Output |
OpenAI
OpenAI
GPT-4o-mini saves you $18.96/month
That's 95% cheaper than GPT-5.2 Chat at 1,000 tokens/request and 100 requests/day.
Assumes 60% input / 40% output token ratio per request. Actual costs may vary based on your usage pattern.
| Parameter | GPT-4o-mini | GPT-5.2 Chat |
|---|---|---|
| Context Window | 128K | 128K |
| Max Output Tokens | 16,384 | 16,384 |
| Open Source | No | No |
| Created | Jul 18, 2024 | Dec 10, 2025 |
GPT-5.2 Chat scores 78/100 (rank #28) compared to GPT-4o-mini's 77/100 (rank #30), giving it a 1-point advantage. GPT-5.2 Chat is the stronger overall choice, though GPT-4o-mini may excel in specific areas like cost efficiency.
GPT-4o-mini is ranked #30 and GPT-5.2 Chat is ranked #28 out of 290+ AI models. Rankings use a composite score combining benchmark performance (90%) from MMLU, GPQA, HumanEval, SWE-bench, and 15+ standardized evaluations, with capabilities and context window as tiebreakers (10%). Scores update hourly.
GPT-4o-mini is cheaper at $0.60/M output tokens vs GPT-5.2 Chat's $14.00/M output tokens - 23.3x more expensive. Input token pricing: GPT-4o-mini at $0.15/M vs GPT-5.2 Chat at $1.75/M.
GPT-4o-mini has a larger context window of 128,000 tokens compared to GPT-5.2 Chat's 128,000 tokens. A larger context window means the model can process longer documents and conversations.