GPT-5.2 wins on coding (85 vs 58) and writing quality and price ($1.75 vs $2.5/1M input) and context window (200K vs 128K). For most workflows, GPT-5.2 is the stronger default — capable but outclassed — gpt-5.4 is now cheaper and better.
The safest GPT-5.2 vs GPT-4o default, the cheaper option worth trying first, and the specialist pick — before you read the detail below.
GPT-5.2 is the strongest answer here for GPT-5.2 vs GPT-4o — pick it when quality of output matters more than the $1.75/1M/1M input you pay for it.
GPT-4o handles the same job for about 21% less per token. Start here and only move up if the output is not good enough.
GPT-4o is the fastest of these for GPT-5.2 vs GPT-4o — worth it when latency is what the reader notices, not the last few points of reasoning depth.
GPT-5.2 leads on coding with a score of 85 vs 58 for GPT-4o.
GPT-5.2 has the larger context window: 200K vs 128K for GPT-4o.
GPT-5.2 is cheaper at $1.75/1M input tokens vs $2.5/1M for GPT-4o.
Go with GPT-5.2 if you want one model to handle coding and research — it targets serious coding and complex product work.
Switch to GPT-4o when your work is mostly multimodal tasks and image-adjacent workflows; on that narrower brief it is the better tool.
Both models serve different primary workflows — GPT-5.2 for serious coding and complex product work, GPT-4o for multimodal tasks and image-adjacent workflows — so running each where it has a clear edge often beats forcing one to do both.
Switch the scoring lens to see whether the GPT-5.2 vs GPT-4o answer changes when cost, speed, or long-document depth leads the decision.
OpenAI / Premium / Sep 3, 2026
Capable but outclassed — GPT-5.4 is now cheaper and better.
Ranks models by the broadest mix of coding, writing, research, and long-context usefulness.
You're starting a new project — GPT-5.4 is cheaper and more capable.
Where the GPT-5.2 vs GPT-4o recommendation shifts once you weigh price or latency differently.
Capable but outclassed — GPT-5.4 is now cheaper and better.
Best all-around pick for image-heavy and multimodal workflows.
List prices and published scores — the numbers this page's pick is built from.
| Model | Input | Output | Est. month | Context | Speed | Coding | Writing | Research |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| GPT-5.2OpenAI | $1.75/1M | $14.00/1M | $46 | 200k tokens | Balanced | 85 | 82 | 84 |
| GPT-4oOpenAI | $2.50/1M | $10.00/1M | $45 | 128k tokens | Fast | 58 | 76 | 65 |
Scores out of 100 — how we evaluate models. “Est. month” is 10M in / 2M out at list price: a ceiling, no discounts.
Why each one is on the shortlist for GPT-5.2 vs GPT-4o, what it is genuinely good at, and where we would steer you away from it.
The default answer for GPT-5.2 vs GPT-4o — 85/100 on the coding axis, and the model we would start with unless the price below rules it out.
Reliable OpenAI flagship for serious coding and product work — a strong default before GPT-5.4 was released.
You're starting a new project — GPT-5.4 is cheaper and more capable.
Still capable but GPT-5.4 at $2.50/1M input is now cheaper and better. Hard to justify GPT-5.2 at $12/1M for new projects.
Full pricing, benchmark table and release notes on the GPT-5.2 page.
Where most budgets should land for GPT-5.2 vs GPT-4o — about 21% less per token than GPT-5.2, and still 58/100 on the coding axis.
Versatile multimodal model that handles image-related workflows and mixed-media prompts well.
You need the latest reasoning or coding performance — GPT-5.4 replaces it for serious work.
Still a reliable multimodal pick, especially for teams already in the OpenAI ecosystem.
Full pricing, benchmark table and release notes on the GPT-4o page.
UseRightAI recommendations are based on practical decision factors people actually feel in day-to-day use.
Newsletter
We email when the GPT-5.2 vs GPT-4o pick changes, when one of these models moves on price, or when something new displaces the current leader.
No spam. Useful updates only. Affiliate disclosures always clearly labeled.
GPT-5.2 wins on more of the categories we score — coding, research, reasoning — so it is the better default of the two. GPT-4o is the better pick when your work is mostly multimodal tasks and image-adjacent workflows. Neither is universally "better": GPT-5.2 is aimed at serious coding and complex product work, GPT-4o at multimodal tasks and image-adjacent workflows.
GPT-5.2 is cheaper at $1.75/1M input and $14/1M output. GPT-4o costs $2.5/1M input and $10/1M output.
GPT-5.2 has the larger context window at 200K tokens vs GPT-4o's 128K. For large document analysis, GPT-5.2 is the stronger pick.
GPT-5.2 is better for coding with a score of 85 vs GPT-4o's 58 (out of 100). GPT-6 Astra is the overall coding leader in this directory at 100/100.
GPT-4o is faster with a fast speed rating (score: 4) vs GPT-5.2's balanced rating (score: 3). Speed matters most for interactive and high-throughput work; for batch jobs the GPT-5.2 latency penalty is usually invisible.
Superseded by GPT-5.4 for most use cases. Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads on both coding and writing quality. Avoid it if you're starting a new project — GPT-5.4 is cheaper and more capable. That is the main case for looking at GPT-4o instead.
Outclassed by newer models on pure coding and reasoning. Gemini 3.1 Pro now handles multimodal at a lower price. Avoid it if you need the latest reasoning or coding performance — GPT-5.4 replaces it for serious work. Against GPT-5.2 specifically, the gap shows up most on coding (85 vs 58).
Take a moderate workload of 10M input and 2M output tokens a month. GPT-5.2 runs $45.50 (at $1.75/1M in and $14/1M out); GPT-4o runs $45.00 (at $2.5/1M in and $10/1M out). The gap is small enough that price should not decide this one. Output tokens dominate the bill on both, so prompt length matters far less than response length.
Yes, and for most teams that beats picking one. A common split is GPT-5.2 for serious coding and complex product work, with GPT-4o handling multimodal tasks and image-adjacent workflows. Since GPT-5.2 is both the stronger and the cheaper option here, a split mainly makes sense if GPT-4o covers a capability you specifically need.