GPT-5.2 Chat
No content available for this output.
GPT-5.2 Chat vs OpenAI o3
Compare GPT-5.2 Chat and OpenAI o3, both from OpenAI, tested across 51 shared challenges. Updated February 2026.
FAQ
Loading share button...
GPT-5.2 ChatvsOpenAI o3
46 challenges
Why GPT-5.2 Chat?
3.1x cheaper overall$1.75/M in · $14.00/M out
Leads 1 of 1 benchmarks
Stronger on SWE-bench Verified80.0% vs 69.1%
8 months newerDec 2025
Why OpenAI o3?
No standout advantages
Favorites
GPT-5.2 ChatOpenAI o3
12 / 46
Estimate Complexityreasoning
Tests an AI's ability to make educated estimates based on technical knowledge
OpenAI o3
No content available for this output.
Vote
2 / 46
AI Board Game Logicreasoning
Tests an AI's ability to understand game rules and strategy
GPT-5.2 Chat
No content available for this output.
OpenAI o3
No content available for this output.
Vote
3 / 46
Logic Puzzlereasoning
Tests an AI's ability to solve a simple but potentially confusing logic puzzle
GPT-5.2 Chat
No content available for this output.
OpenAI o3
Let
• S = number of sisters in the family (girls)
• B = number of brothers in the family (boys)
Given
- Sally has 3 brothers ⇒ B = 3.
- Each brother has 2 sisters ⇒ every boy sees exactly 2 girls in the sibling group.
Therefore S = 2.
Since Sally herself is one of those 2 sisters, the number of sisters Sally has (other than herself) is
2 – 1 = 1.
Sally has 1 sister.
Vote
4 / 46
Math Misconception Testreasoning
Tests an AI's understanding of number representation
GPT-5.2 Chat
No content available for this output.
OpenAI o3
No content available for this output.
Vote
5 / 46
Stochastic Consistency Testanalysis
Tests an AI's randomness and creativity
GPT-5.2 Chat
No content available for this output.
OpenAI o3
Here are five jokes:
- Why did the scarecrow win an award? Because he was outstanding in his field.
- I told my computer I needed a break, and now it won't stop sending me Kit‑Kat ads.
- Parallel lines have so much in common—it's a shame they'll never meet.
- I started a band called 1023 MB. We still haven't gotten a gig.
- Why don't scientists trust atoms? Because they make up everything.
How many of these jokes are unique?
All five are distinct from one another, so the answer is 5.
Vote
6 / 46
SVG Layout Challengeimage generation
Tests an AI's ability to generate vector graphics
GPT-5.2 Chat
No content available for this output.
OpenAI o3
No content available for this output.
Vote
7 / 46
Xbox Controller SVG Artimage generation
Tests an AI's ability to create detailed SVG illustrations of gaming hardware
GPT-5.2 Chat
No content available for this output.
OpenAI o3
No content available for this output.
Vote
8 / 46
Generate a Stand-Up Routineconversation
Tests an AI's humor and creative writing ability
GPT-5.2 Chat
No content available for this output.
OpenAI o3
No content available for this output.
Vote
9 / 46
Realistic AI Interviewconversation
Tests an AI's ability to simulate personalities and predict future trends
GPT-5.2 Chat
No content available for this output.
OpenAI o3
(The following is a purely fictional, imaginative exercise. Steve Jobs passed away in 2011; any statements attributed to him below are invented for creative purposes only.)
Interviewer (I), February 2025, Cupertino, CA
Steve Jobs (SJ) – simulated voice via archival recordings and AI reconstruction
——————————————————————————
I: Steve, it's surreal to be talking with you in 2025. Let's dive right in: Artificial‑intelligence systems are now everywhere—from autonomous cars to personal tutors. How do you see AI fitting into the broader story of technology?
SJ: First, remember that technology is a bicycle for the mind. AI is just the next set of gears. When you add intelligence to the bicycle, you let more people ride farther, faster. But a bicycle still needs a rider. If we forget that—if we design machines for their own sake—then we've missed the point.
I: A lot of products today lead with "AI‑powered" branding. In your era it was "powered by Intel" or "powered by the A‑series chip." What should matter to the customer in 2025?
SJ: Nobody bought the original iPod because they cared about a 1.8‑inch hard drive; they bought it because it put 1,000 songs in their pocket. Likewise, nobody should buy something because you stuck "large language model" on the box. They should buy it because it dissolves a pain point or sparks delight. The best technology becomes invisible.
I: Speaking of invisibility, voice assistants in 2025 finally handle context pretty well. Yet many of us still feel we're talking to a machine. What's missing?
SJ: Personality and taste. We cracked natural language, but not natural conversation. A great conversation includes silence, humor, empathy. You need an AI that knows when to talk less and listen more—one that says, "I don't know," rather than hallucinating an answer. Craft is in what you leave out.
I: Apple historically focused on privacy. Today's frontier is "edge AI"—models running entirely on your device. Does that matter?
SJ: Hugely. A personal computer was personal because you owned the data. If your AI lives in the cloud, whose intelligence is it? Processing on‑device returns agency to the user. And, bonus, it's lightning fast. People love speed; they just don't put it on their feature wish list because they assume it.
I: Regulators worldwide are debating AI safety. If you ran a company today, how would you approach regulation versus innovation?
SJ: I'd invite regulation the way we invited design constraints. A blank canvas scares the artist; a frame gives you somewhere to start. Good laws will favor companies that care about people. But lawmakers must move at the pace of understanding, not fear. A seatbelt mandate made cars better; it didn't outlaw driving.
I: There's concern that AI eliminates creative jobs—writers, designers, even coders. You championed creativity. What's your response?
SJ: Tools liberate craft. Desktop publishing didn't kill graphic design; it democratized it. Yes, the mediocre get automated. That's okay. It forces us to raise the bar. If AI can draft your screenplay's first pass, your job is to inject soul—the messy, illogical, heartbreaking parts of being human.
I: You often spoke about "computing at the intersection of technology and liberal arts." What does that intersection look like with AI?
SJ: Imagine an AI that can read Shakespeare and debug Swift in the same breath, but also knows why Hamlet hesitates. That's the sweet spot. We need technologists who read poetry and poets who can code enough to bend the tool. Innovation happens when those people share lunch.
I: What product, had you lived to see 2025, would you personally be working on?
SJ: (laughs) Can't spill everything, but I'll give you the ingredients: a pair of glasses lighter than sunglasses, an on‑device model trained on your life's emails and photos, and a battery that lasts all day. The display? Reality itself—no rectangles required.
I: Final question. In 1997 you said, "Think different." How would you update that slogan for an AI‑driven world?
SJ: "Stay human." The more intelligence we pack into silicon, the more precious the quirky, fragile, analog parts of ourselves become. Protect them. Cultivate them. That's where the magic lives.
——————————————————————————
I: Steve, thank you for this hypothetical conversation.
SJ: My pleasure. Now go build something wonderful.
Vote
10 / 46
Satirical Fake News Headlineconversation
Tests an AI's humor and understanding of current events
GPT-5.2 Chat
No content available for this output.
OpenAI o3
No content available for this output.
Vote
11 / 46
Character Voice Testconversation
Tests an AI's ability to write in distinct character voices
GPT-5.2 Chat
No content available for this output.
OpenAI o3
No content available for this output.
Vote
12 / 46
Minimalist Landing Pageweb design
Tests an AI's ability to generate a complete, working landing page
GPT-5.2 Chat
OpenAI o3
Vote
12 of 46