Back to Value Frontier

OpenAI: GPT-5.2-Codex vs OpenAI: GPT-4o Audio

Head-to-head API cost, context, and performance comparison. Synced at 9:52:31 AM.

Executive Summary

When evaluating OpenAI: GPT-5.2-Codex against OpenAI: GPT-4o Audio, the pricing structure is a key differentiator. OpenAI: GPT-4o Audio is approximately 21% more cost-effective per 1 million tokens overall.

However, when looking at raw reasoning capabilities, OpenAI: GPT-4o Audio leads with a statistical ELO score of 1300. For tasks involving complex logic, coding, or instruction-following, developers might prefer OpenAI: GPT-4o Audio, provided their budget allows for the API burn rate.

Arbitrage Alert

You are losing 21%
per million tokens by hardcoding OpenAI: GPT-5.2-Codex.

Stop guessing exactly which model to route to. Deploy the 0ms Intelligence Engine to automatically arbitrage this 21% gap in your production environment instantly.

21% Instant Profit Margin Recovery
Node.js Enterprise SDK included

Raw Technical comparison

Metric
OpenAI: GPT-5.2-Codex
OpenAI: GPT-4o Audio
Performance (ELO)
1300
1300
Input Cost / 1M
$1.75
$2.50
Output Cost / 1M
$14.00
$10.00
Context Window
400,000 tokens
128,000 tokens

Verdict

If you are looking for pure performance and capability, Tie is statistically superior. However, if API burn rate is the primary concern, OpenAI: GPT-4o Audio wins out aggressively in pricing.

People Also Ask

Is OpenAI: GPT-5.2-Codex cheaper than OpenAI: GPT-4o Audio?

No. OpenAI: GPT-4o Audio is the more cost-effective model, operating at a lower price point per 1 million tokens.

Which model has the larger context window?

The OpenAI: GPT-5.2-Codex model has the advantage in memory, offering a massive 400,000 token limit for document ingestion.

Related Comparisons

Compare OpenAI: GPT-5.2-Codex vs Google: Gemma 3n 2B (free)Compare OpenAI: GPT-5.2-Codex vs Google: Gemma 3n 4B (free)Compare OpenAI: GPT-5.2-Codex vs Meta: Llama 3.3 70B Instruct (free)Compare OpenAI: GPT-5.2-Codex vs Nous: Hermes 3 405B Instruct (free)