[minadotcom]

They used to compare to competing models from Anthropic, Google DeepMind, DeepSeek, etc. Seems that now they only compare to their own models. Does this mean that the GPT-series is performing worse than its competitors (given the "code red" at OpenAI)?

[Tiberium]

They did compare it to other models: https://x.com/OpenAI/status/1999182104362668275

https://i.imgur.com/e0iB8KC.png

[enlyth]

This looks cherry-picked, for example Claude Opus had a higher score on SWE-Bench Verified so they conveniently left it out, also GDPval is literally a benchmark made by OpenAI

[tobias2014]

And who believes that the difference between 91.9% and 92.4% is significant in these benchmarks? Clearly these have margins of error that are swept under the rug.

[minadotcom]

agreed.

[sergdigon]

The fact that the post is comparing their reasoning model against gemini 3 pro (the "non reasoning" model) and not gemini 3 pro deep think (the reasoning one) is quite nasty. If you compare GPT5.2 thinking to gemini 3 pro deep think, the scores are quite similar (sometimes one is better sometimes the other one is)

[whimsicalism]

uh oh, where did SWE bench go :D

[whimsicalism]

maybe they will release with gpt-5.2-codex

[tabletcorry]

The matrix required for a fair comparison is getting too complicated, since you have to compare chat/thinking/pro against an array of Anthropic and Google models.

But they publish all the same numbers, so you can make the full comparison yourself, if you want to.

[Workaccount2]

They are taking a page out of Apple's book.

Apple only compares to themselves. They don't even acknowledge the existence of others.

[poormathskills]

OpenAI has never compared their models to models from other labs in their blog post. Open literally any past model launch post to see that.

[boole1854]

https://openai.com/index/hello-gpt-4o/

I see evaluations compared with Claude, Gemini, and Llama there on the GPT 4o post.

[kgwgk]

“You are absolutely right, and I apologize for the confusion.”