GPT-5.2-Codex vs Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct: which should you choose in 2026?
GPT-5.2-Codex (by OpenAI) and Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct (by Qwen) are compared below. Here is how they stack up on benchmarks, price, and capabilities, and which one to pick in 2026.
There are not enough shared, protocol-compatible benchmark results to declare a performance leader.
Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct is about 6.5× cheaper on a blended 3:1 input/output basis ($0.745 vs $4.81 per 1M tokens).
GPT-5.2-Codex has the larger context window (400,000 tokens vs 32,768 tokens).
Choose GPT-5.2-Codex if…
- • you work with longer documents, transcripts, or codebases
- • you need a model with explicit reasoning support
- • you need image inputs
Choose Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct if…
- • lower blended API cost matters for your workload
The benchmark count includes only results measured with a matching benchmark version and protocol. Arena scores are shown separately. Missing, preliminary, and incompatible data is not treated as a controlled win. Published point-score comparisons are labeled separately when protocol details are incomplete. For text-output models, the verdict also compares token pricing and context windows.
Performance benchmarks
Every value links to its source. A dash means that no reviewed result is available for that exact model and protocol.
| Benchmark | GPT-5.2-Codex | Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
A 657-task benchmark of multi-step work across simulated SaaS applications in six business domains. The Artificial Analysis protocol reports a guardrail-aware score and is distinct from both the public Zapier split and the unrelated dynamic AutoBench framework. Guardrail-aware score | — | — |
A benchmark of difficult, verifiable information-seeking questions designed to measure an agent's ability to locate hard-to-find facts through web browsing. Accuracy | — | — |
A verified computer-use benchmark in which multimodal agents operate desktop applications and are graded from the resulting environment state. Mean task reward | — | — |
A human-validated subset of real GitHub issues used to measure whether a coding agent can produce repository patches that resolve the associated tests. Resolved Protocols differ or are incompletely disclosed; not counted as a controlled win | 72.8% SWE-bench | 9.0% SWE-bench |
Version 2.1 of the benchmark for completing realistic tasks in terminal environments. Harness, resource limits, and attempt count are part of the protocol. Mean task success | — | — |
A dynamic LLM evaluation framework in which models generate questions, answer them, and participate in reciprocal peer assessment. AutoBench is distinct from Zapier's AutomationBench. Weighted peer-assessment score | — | — |
The highest-quality subset of Graduate-Level Google-Proof Q&A, designed to test expert-level scientific reasoning in biology, physics, and chemistry. Accuracy | — | — |
A 2,500-question expert-level benchmark spanning dozens of academic fields. Tool-assisted and no-tools results are separate protocols and must not be merged. Accuracy | — | — |
A contamination-resistant benchmark refreshed on a fixed release cadence. Scores from different LiveBench releases must never be compared as the same protocol. Mean of category averages | 74.0% LiveBench | — |
| Arena preference scores | ||
Human preference score for code and web development | 1338 ±9 | — |
Benchmark sources
Reviewed evidence last updated 2026-08-09. Arena data last refreshed Aug 23, 2026.
Pricing, capabilities, and model facts
| Feature | GPT-5.2-Codex | Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| Context & model facts | ||
| Developer | OpenAI | Qwen |
| API provider | OpenAI | Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct |
| Input context | 400,000 tokens | 32,768 tokens |
| Maximum output | 128,000 tokens | 32,768 tokens |
| Released | — | — |
| Added to Writingmate | Jan 14, 2026 | Nov 11, 2024 |
| License | Not available | Not available |
| Knowledge cutoff | — | 2024-06-30 |
| Capabilities | ||
| Inputs | Text, Image | Text |
| Outputs | Text | Text |
| Provider endpoint accepts tool parameters | Yes | No |
| Reasoning | Yes | No |
| Vision | Yes | No |
| Image Generation | No | No |
| Video Generation | No | No |
| API pricing | ||
| Input (per 1M tokens) | $1.75 | $0.66 |
| Output (per 1M tokens) | $14.00 | $1.00 |
| Blended 3:1 input/output | $4.81 | $0.745 |
| API performance | ||
| p95 latency | Not measured | Not measured |
| Output throughput | Not measured | Not measured |
| Writingmate shows API performance only when both models have enough observations from the same measurement window, prompt profile, and provider. Third-party latency values are not copied into this table. | ||
Data sources
- Writingmate model catalog (pricing, limits, and availability)
Catalog data last updated Jan 14, 2026.
Why Pay for Multiple Subscriptions?
Comparing GPT-5.2-Codex from OpenAI with Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct from Qwen? Instead of managing separate API keys and subscriptions, get both with Writingmate.
| Plan | Price | GPT-5.2-Codex | Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct | AI Images | AI Video |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Writingmate Pro Most popular | $20/mo | Included | Included | Nano Banana Pro, FLUX.2, DALL-E & more | Sora 2, VEO 3.1 |
Writingmate Ultimate Power users | $60/mo | Included | Included | Nano Banana Pro, FLUX.2, DALL-E & more | Sora 2, VEO 3.1 |
GPT-5.2-Codex vs Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct FAQ
Which is better, GPT-5.2-Codex or Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct?
There are not enough shared, protocol-compatible benchmark results to declare a performance leader. Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct is about 6.5× cheaper on a blended 3:1 input/output basis ($0.745 vs $4.81 per 1M tokens). GPT-5.2-Codex has the larger context window (400,000 tokens vs 32,768 tokens).
Which model is cheaper to use through an API?
Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct is about 6.5× cheaper on a blended 3:1 input/output basis ($0.745 vs $4.81 per 1M tokens).
Which model supports more context?
GPT-5.2-Codex has the larger context window (400,000 tokens vs 32,768 tokens).
Can I switch between GPT-5.2-Codex and Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct?
Yes. Use the model selector on this page to open any current Writingmate model comparison. You can also run the same prompt with both models in Writingmate.
Related comparisons
More GPT-5.2-Codex comparisons
Seed-2.0-Code
ByteDance
Seed 2.0 Code is a model from ByteDance Seed optimized for agentic coding.
Kimi K2.7 Code
Moonshot AI
MoonshotAI: Kimi K2.7 Code is a coding-focused model in Moonshot AI's Kimi K2 family, built to complete end-to-end programming tasks reliably over long contexts.
Muse Spark 1.2 Contributor
Meta
Muse Spark 1.2 contributor tier is a reasoning model from Meta designed for developers who want to start building at an even lower cost.
DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision Exp
DeepSeek
DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision Exp is a model by DeepSeek.
Ox Alpha
Stealth
Ox Alpha is a reasoning model designed for coding, sustained agentic work, and production workloads.
Qwen3.8 27B
Qwen
Qwen3.8 27B is an open-weight dense vision-language model from Qwen.
More Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct comparisons
Seed-2.0-Code
ByteDance
Seed 2.0 Code is a model from ByteDance Seed optimized for agentic coding.
KAT-Coder-Air V2.5
KwaiPilot
KAT-Coder-Air V2.5 is a model by KwaiPilot.
KAT-Coder-Pro V2.5
KwaiPilot
KAT-Coder-Pro V2.5 is a model by KwaiPilot.
Kimi K2.7 Code
Moonshot AI
MoonshotAI: Kimi K2.7 Code is a coding-focused model in Moonshot AI's Kimi K2 family, built to complete end-to-end programming tasks reliably over long contexts.
KAT-Coder-Pro V2
KwaiPilot
KAT-Coder-Pro V2 is the latest high-performance model in KwaiKAT’s KAT-Coder series, designed for complex enterprise-grade software engineering and SaaS integration.
GPT-5.3-Codex
OpenAI
GPT-5.3-Codex is OpenAI’s most advanced agentic coding model, combining the frontier software engineering performance of GPT-5.2-Codex with the broader reasoning and professional knowledge capabilities of GPT-5.2.