Model Comparison
GPT-5.2 Codex (xhigh)
vs. Hermes 4 - Llama-3.1 70B (Non-reasoning)
Comparing 2 AI models · 10 benchmarks · OpenAI, Nous Research
Recommended Pick
Op GPT-5.2 Codex (xhigh) 11 metric wins Strongest on: Throughput, Reasoning, Intelligence
Best Value
Hermes 4 - Llama-3.1 70B (Non-reasoning)
100.0 value score
17.6 reasoning / $0.20/1M
Lowest Price
Hermes 4 - Llama-3.1 70B (Non-reasoning)
$0.13/1M input price
Best Reasoning
GPT-5.2 Codex (xhigh)
57.5 reasoning score
Blends available reasoning benchmarks
Best for Coding
GPT-5.2 Codex (xhigh)
43.0 coding index
Composite Indices
Higher is better; speed and price are normalized
Standard Benchmarks
Only benchmarks with data are shown
Differences That Matter
Best value
Hermes 4 - Llama-3.1 70B (Non-reasoning) has the strongest quality-to-price mix at 100.0 out of 100 value points.
Price gap
Hermes 4 - Llama-3.1 70B (Non-reasoning) is 13.5x cheaper on input tokens than GPT-5.2 Codex (xhigh).
Speed gap
GPT-5.2 Codex (xhigh) generates about 1.5x as many tokens per second as Hermes 4 - Llama-3.1 70B (Non-reasoning).
Reasoning gap
GPT-5.2 Codex (xhigh) leads Hermes 4 - Llama-3.1 70B (Non-reasoning) by 39.9 points on reasoning.
Coding gap
GPT-5.2 Codex (xhigh) leads Hermes 4 - Llama-3.1 70B (Non-reasoning) by 33.8 points on coding.
Response Face-Off
Run one prompt through the selected models and compare response quality with live speed and cost context.
GPT-5.2 Codex (xhigh)
OpenAI
TTFT
—
Time
—
tok/s
—
Tokens
—
Cost
—
Hermes 4 - Llama-3.1 70B (Non-reasoning)
Nous Research
TTFT
—
Time
—
tok/s
—
Tokens
—
Cost
—
Which answer was more useful?
Full Comparison
| Metric | Top Pick Op GPT-5.2 Codex (xhigh) | No Hermes 4 - Llama-3.1 70B (Non-reasoning) |
|---|---|---|
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input Cost | $1.75/1M | $0.13/1M |
| Output Cost | $14.00/1M | $0.40/1M |
| Blended (3:1) | $4.81/1M | $0.20/1M |
| Specifications | ||
| Organization | OpenAI | Nous Research |
| Release Date | Dec 11, 2025 | Aug 27, 2025 |
| Performance & Speed | ||
| Throughput | 133.8 tok/s | 89.0 tok/s |
| TTFT | 1971ms | 595ms |
| Latency | 1971ms | 595ms |
| Composite Indices | ||
| Value Score | 13.4 | 100.0 |
| Reasoning Score | 57.5 | 17.6 |
| Intelligence | 49.0 | 12.6 |
| Coding | 43.0 | 9.2 |
| Math | — | 11.3 |
| Standard Benchmarks | ||
| GPQA | 89.9% | 49.1% |
| MMLU Pro | — | 66.4% |
| HLE | 33.5% | 3.6% |
| LiveCodeBench | — | 26.9% |
| AIME 2025 | — | 11.3% |
| SciCode | 54.6% | 27.7% |
| LCR | 75.7% | 2.0% |
| IFBench | 77.6% | 29.0% |
| TAU-bench v2 | 92.1% | 21.6% |
| TerminalBench Hard | 37.1% | 0.0% |
Key Takeaways
Hermes 4 - Llama-3.1 70B (Non-reasoning) offers the best value at $0.13/1M, making it ideal for high-volume applications and cost-conscious projects.
GPT-5.2 Codex (xhigh) has the strongest reasoning profile with a 57.5 reasoning score, combining the available reasoning-heavy benchmarks.
GPT-5.2 Codex (xhigh) reaches a 43.0 coding index, making it the top choice for software development and code generation tasks.
All models support context windows of ∞+ tokens, suitable for processing lengthy documents and maintaining extended conversations.
When to Choose Each Model
GPT-5.2 Codex (xhigh)
- Complex reasoning tasks
- Research & analysis
- Code generation
- Software development
Hermes 4 - Llama-3.1 70B (Non-reasoning)
- Cost-sensitive applications
- High-volume processing
