// head_to_head

Nova Premier 1.0 vs GPT-5.2

Published LiveBench scores across all seven categories, live list pricing, context windows, and the measured cost of a point of capability — for both models, side by side.

OpenRouter + LiveBenchAll comparisonsFull leaderboard

Nova Premier 1.0 and GPT-5.2 are priced within ~10% of each other.

Nova Premier 1.0 does not have a published LiveBench run, so this comparison covers price, context and declared capabilities only. A missing score means "not evaluated", not "worse" — the right way to separate these two is an eval on your own workload.

amazon

Nova Premier 1.0

Blended / 1M
$5.00
Context
1M
Released
Oct 31, 2025
Overall score
Not evaluated
tool callingimage inputprompt caching

openai

GPT-5.2

Blended / 1M
$4.81
Context
400K
Released
Dec 10, 2025
Overall score
74.6
reasoningtool callingfile inputimage inputprompt caching

Specs and pricing

MetricNova Premier 1.0GPT-5.2
LiveBench overall

Mean of the seven LiveBench category scores, 0–100. Higher is better.

74.6
Cost per point

Measured benchmark spend divided by overall score — dollars per point of capability.

$0.1289
Blended price / 1M

3:1 input:output mix, the usual shape of production traffic.

$5.00$4.81
Input price / 1M$2.50$1.75win
Output price / 1M$12.50win$14.00
Cached input / 1M

Price of an input token served from the prompt cache, where the provider publishes one.

$0.625$0.175win
Context window1Mwin400K
Max output tokens32K128Kwin

Benchmarks by category

An overall score averages away the thing you probably care about. These are the seven LiveBench categories scored separately — Nova Premier 1.0 on top, GPT-5.2 below, both out of 100.

Agentic coding
50.3
Coding
76.1
Reasoning
83.2
Mathematics
93.2
Data analysis
78.2
Language
79.8
Instruction following
61.8

What each one costs to run

Per-token prices are hard to feel. These are monthly list costs for both models across five workload shapes, using each provider's published cached-input rate where there is one.

WorkloadNova Premier 1.0GPT-5.2
Support chatbot

1.2K in / 400 out × 200K requests

$1,465/mo$1,427/mo
RAG assistant

8K in / 600 out × 100K requests

$2,000/mo$1,610/mo
Coding agent

40K in / 4K out × 20K requests

$1,950/mo$1,638/mo
Document extraction

20K in / 1.5K out × 50K requests

$3,344/mo$2,721/mo
Bulk classification

500 in / 20 out × 5M requests

$6,563/mo$4,988/mo
Run these two through the cost calculator

Which should you pick?

You need to fit large documents in one call

Nova Premier 1.0

Wider context window — 1M against 400K.

Nova Premier 1.0 vs GPT-5.2 FAQ

Which is better, Nova Premier 1.0 or GPT-5.2?

Nova Premier 1.0 and GPT-5.2 are priced within ~10% of each other. Nova Premier 1.0 does not have a published LiveBench run, so this comparison covers price, context and declared capabilities only. A missing score means "not evaluated", not "worse" — the right way to separate these two is an eval on your own workload.

Is Nova Premier 1.0 cheaper than GPT-5.2?

They cost about the same. Both land near $5.00 per million tokens on a 3:1 input:output blend, so price is unlikely to be the deciding factor between them.

Does Nova Premier 1.0 or GPT-5.2 have a bigger context window?

Nova Premier 1.0 has the larger context window: 1M for Nova Premier 1.0 against 400K for GPT-5.2. Note that a window you can fill is not a window you should fill — retrieval quality usually degrades well before the limit, and you pay for every token you put in it.

Do Nova Premier 1.0 and GPT-5.2 support prompt caching?

Both publish a cached-input rate: $0.625 per million for Nova Premier 1.0 and $0.175 for GPT-5.2, against full input rates of $2.50 and $1.75. On a workload with a long stable prefix — a system prompt, a tool schema, a retrieved corpus — that changes the economics more than the headline price does.

Related comparisons

How these numbers are produced

  • Price — provider list price from OpenRouter, refreshed every 15 minutes. “Blended” is a 3:1 input:output mix.
  • ScoresLiveBench release 2026-06-25, using their own category map. Each model shows its strongest published run. A blank means “not evaluated”, never “bad”.
  • Cost per point — the measured dollars LiveBench spent on the run, divided by the score it earned.
  • “Win” — awarded only past a threshold: one full point on a benchmark score, 10% on a price, 25% on a context window. Anything tighter reports as a tie, because effort settings alone move a LiveBench score by more than that.

Published benchmarks rank models on someone else's tasks. Before committing, see LLM & agent evaluation for building an eval on your own.