Data points: 72
Model compare
The readout for GPT-5.2 and Llama 3.1, before the detailed comparison sheet.
Weighted outcome: GPT-5.2. Benchmark capability categories carry 80%, while price, API performance, and availability carry 20%.
Decision read
GPT-5.2
GPT-5.2 has the higher weighted result; Model A / B score 93.3 to 6.7.
Evidence depth
72 data points
Includes 9 benchmark rows, 0 audit samples, and 6 provider examples.
Selection signal
Start with GPT-5.2
The charts below split 15 high-signal samples across speed, scores, and audit health.
Switch either side of this report to compare another model with the same LMSpeed data pipeline.
Select a different model to open a new comparison URL.
This report only uses LMSpeed data for GPT-5.2 and Llama 3.1: pricing, speed aggregates, third-party benchmark scores, and shared provider samples.
| Model compare | GPT-5.2 | Llama 3.1 |
|---|---|---|
| Overall leader | Leading | Contender |
| Weighted overall score | 93.3 pts | 6.7 pts |
| Benchmark category leads | 5 categories | 0 categories |
| Operational advantages | Free providers, Provider coverage | Cheapest input price |
| Context window | 400K tokens | No data |
| Max output | 128K tokens | No data |
| Modalities | Input FileImageText Output Text | No data |
The overall result weights benchmark capability categories at 80% and price, API speed/latency, and availability at 20%. Recent test volume does not affect the winner, and missing benchmark categories are excluded.
| Model compare | GPT-5.2 | Llama 3.1 |
|---|---|---|
| Developer | OpenAI | Meta |
| Released | Dec 2025 | No data |
| Parameters | No data | No data |
| Tokenizer | GPT | No data |
| Knowledge cutoff | No data | No data |
| OpenRouter ID | openai/gpt-5.2 | No data |
| References | No data | No data |
This report only uses LMSpeed data for GPT-5.2 and Llama 3.1: pricing, speed aggregates, third-party benchmark scores, and shared provider samples.
GPT-5.2
GPT-5.2 is stronger in benchmark categories (Agents, Coding, Reasoning, Knowledge, Instruction following) and operational dimensions (Free providers, Provider coverage).
Llama 3.1
Llama 3.1 has these operational advantages: Cheapest input price.
Third-party benchmark profile synced into LMSpeed; only metrics available for both models are shown.
Compare benchmark category scores on a 0-100 scale. Select a category to inspect the gap.
Avg. score
GPT-5.2
52.9
Avg. score
Llama 3.1
42.6
GPT-5.2 leads by 11.1
GPT-5.2 leads by 11.2
GPT-5.2 leads by 16.9
GPT-5.2 leads by 7.9
GPT-5.2
No data
GPT-5.2
GPT-5.2 leads by 11.8
Metric-level scores with benchmark source, rank depth, confidence, error, and evaluation date where available.
GPT-5.2
winner72.7
Rank #12/89 · confidence 3 · eval date 2025-12-11
Llama 3.1
24.3
Rank #86/89 · confidence 1 · eval date 2024-07-23
GPT-5.2
winner52.1
Rank #17/96 · confidence 3 · eval date 2025-12-11
Llama 3.1
29.9
Rank #86/96 · confidence 1 · eval date 2024-07-23
GPT-5.2
winner43.8
Rank #16/90 · confidence 3 · eval date 2025-12-11
Llama 3.1
22.3
Rank #69/90 · confidence 1 · eval date 2024-07-23
GPT-5.2
winner90.3
Rank #18/96 · confidence 3 · eval date 2025-12-11
Llama 3.1
51.5
Rank #92/96 · confidence 1 · eval date 2024-07-23
GPT-5.2
winner35.4
Rank #21/96 · confidence 3 · eval date 2025-12-11
Llama 3.1
4.2
Rank #86/96 · confidence 1 · eval date 2024-07-23
GPT-5.2
winner42.2
Rank #21/99 · confidence 3 · eval date 2025-12-11
Llama 3.1
8.5
Rank #95/99 · confidence 1 · eval date 2024-07-23
GPT-5.2
winner79.7
Rank #40/90 · confidence 3 · eval date 2025-12-11
Llama 3.1
51.0
Rank #67/90 · confidence 1 · eval date 2024-07-23
GPT-5.2
winner75.4
Rank #21/86 · confidence 3 · eval date 2025-12-11
Llama 3.1
39.0
Rank #74/86 · confidence 1 · eval date 2024-07-23
GPT-5.2
winner84.8
Rank #44/84 · confidence 3 · eval date 2025-12-11
Llama 3.1
19.0
Rank #80/84 · confidence 1 · eval date 2024-07-23
Latest completed audits from shared providers, with four safety and integrity score groups plus report links.
| Provider | GPT-5.2 | Llama 3.1 |
|---|---|---|
| No completed audits are available from shared providers yet. | ||
Speed aggregates and input/output pricing share each provider row for real API selection and migration cost checks.
| Provider | GPT-5.2 | Llama 3.1 |
|---|---|---|
15 tests | GPT-5.2 speed / latency 56 tok/s / 1798ms input / output No data | Llama 3.1 speed / latency N/A / N/A input / output No data |
0 tests | GPT-5.2 speed / latency N/A / N/A input / output No data | Llama 3.1 speed / latency N/A / N/A input / output No data |
0 tests | GPT-5.2 speed / latency N/A / N/A input / output No data | Llama 3.1 speed / latency N/A / N/A input / output No data |
0 tests | GPT-5.2 speed / latency N/A / N/A input / output No data | Llama 3.1 speed / latency N/A / N/A input / output No data |
0 tests | GPT-5.2 speed / latency N/A / N/A input / output No data | Llama 3.1 speed / latency N/A / N/A input / output No data |
GPT-5.2 gpt-5.2-chat-latest speed / latency No data input / output $0/request | Llama 3.1 llama-3.1-405b speed / latency No data input / output $0/request |
Weighted outcome: GPT-5.2. Benchmark capability categories carry 80%, while price, API performance, and availability carry 20%.
| Features | Text inputImage inputFile inputText outputTool callingStructured outputsJSON modeReasoning | None listed |
|---|
