// head_to_head

GPT-5.2 vs Qwen3.6 Plus

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

GPT-5.2 scores higher, Qwen3.6 Plus costs less — it depends on your workload.

GPT-5.2 is ahead by 5.7 points overall, and Qwen3.6 Plus lists 6.6× cheaper per blended million tokens. Whether 5.7 points is worth that depends on how much a wrong answer costs you.

openai

GPT-5.2

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

qwen

Qwen3.6 Plus

Blended / 1M
$0.731
Context
1M
Released
Apr 2, 2026
Overall score
68.9
reasoningtool callingimage inputvideo input

Specs and pricing

MetricGPT-5.2Qwen3.6 Plus
LiveBench overall

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

74.6win68.9
Cost per point

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

$0.1289$0.1262
Blended price / 1M

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

$4.81$0.731win
Input price / 1M$1.75$0.325win
Output price / 1M$14.00$1.95win
Cached input / 1M

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

$0.175
Context window400K1Mwin
Max output tokens128Kwin66K

Benchmarks by category

An overall score averages away the thing you probably care about. These are the seven LiveBench categories scored separately — GPT-5.2 on top, Qwen3.6 Plus below, both out of 100.

Agentic coding
50.3
41.4
Coding
76.1
78.2
Reasoning
83.2
75.8
Mathematics
93.2
83.7
Data analysis
78.2
69.9
Language
79.8
75.0
Instruction following
61.8
58.3

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.

WorkloadGPT-5.2Qwen3.6 Plus
Support chatbot

1.2K in / 400 out × 200K requests

$1426.60/mo$234.00/mo
RAG assistant

8K in / 600 out × 100K requests

$1610.00/mo$377.00/mo
Coding agent

40K in / 4K out × 20K requests

$1638.00/mo$416.00/mo
Document extraction

20K in / 1.5K out × 50K requests

$2721.25/mo$471.25/mo
Bulk classification

500 in / 20 out × 5M requests

$4987.50/mo$1007.50/mo
Run these two through the cost calculator

Which should you pick?

Quality matters more than the bill

GPT-5.2

Highest overall LiveBench score of the two at 74.6.

The workload is coding or agentic work

GPT-5.2

Leads on agentic coding — 50.3 against 41.4.

You need to fit large documents in one call

Qwen3.6 Plus

Wider context window — 1M against 400K.

GPT-5.2 vs Qwen3.6 Plus FAQ

Which is better, GPT-5.2 or Qwen3.6 Plus?

GPT-5.2 scores higher, Qwen3.6 Plus costs less — it depends on your workload. GPT-5.2 is ahead by 5.7 points overall, and Qwen3.6 Plus lists 6.6× cheaper per blended million tokens. Whether 5.7 points is worth that depends on how much a wrong answer costs you.

Is GPT-5.2 cheaper than Qwen3.6 Plus?

Qwen3.6 Plus is cheaper. On a 3:1 input:output blend, GPT-5.2 lists at $4.81 per million tokens and Qwen3.6 Plus at $0.731 — Qwen3.6 Plus is 6.6× cheaper. Input and output are priced separately — GPT-5.2 charges $1.75 in and $14.00 out, Qwen3.6 Plus charges $0.325 and $1.95 — so the model that looks cheaper flips depending on how output-heavy your workload is.

GPT-5.2 vs Qwen3.6 Plus: which scores higher on benchmarks?

GPT-5.2 scores 74.6 and Qwen3.6 Plus scores 68.9 overall on LiveBench, the mean of its seven categories. That is a 5.7-point lead for GPT-5.2. Category scores differ from the overall figure — a model can lead on reasoning and trail on coding, which the per-category table above breaks out.

Which gives better value for money, GPT-5.2 or Qwen3.6 Plus?

They are close. GPT-5.2 costs $0.1289 per point of overall capability and Qwen3.6 Plus costs $0.1262, a difference small enough that workload shape will matter more than the rate.

Does GPT-5.2 or Qwen3.6 Plus have a bigger context window?

Qwen3.6 Plus has the larger context window: 400K for GPT-5.2 against 1M for Qwen3.6 Plus. 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 GPT-5.2 and Qwen3.6 Plus support prompt caching?

GPT-5.2 publishes a cached-input rate of $0.175 per million tokens against a full input rate of $1.75. The catalogue lists no separate cached rate for Qwen3.6 Plus, which means the provider does not price it separately here — not that caching is unavailable.

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.