GPT just dropped a massive update — GPT 5.2 — and I tested it live to find out if it’s actually better.
No hype. No marketing spin. Just results.
Watch the video below:
Want to make money and save time with AI? Get AI Coaching, Support & Courses inside the AI Profit Boardroom 👉 https://juliangoldieai.com/0cK-Hi
Get a FREE AI Course + 1000 AI Agents 👉 https://www.skool.com/ai-seo-with-julian-goldie-1553/about
What’s New in GPT 5.2
OpenAI claims GPT 5.2 is its most capable model yet.
It’s built for professional knowledge work, better reasoning, and higher accuracy.
The benchmarks look good — but I don’t trust benchmarks.
I care about real-world tests: how it performs when you’re coding, writing, or building systems that actually make money.
So I put GPT 5.2 through side-by-side tests with Gemini 3 and Claude Opus 4.5, using the same prompts across coding and SEO workflows.
The Access Problem
First off, GPT 5.2 isn’t available on the basic $10 plan.
You need to upgrade to the more expensive Pro tier to unlock it.
That’s an instant $200/month jump if you’re managing multiple accounts.
If you don’t want to pay, I found a workaround — you can access GPT 5.2 for free through GenSpark.ai.
Go to genspark.ai → New → AI Chat → GPT 5.2.
It’s limited, but it works.
Test #1: Coding a PS5 Controller in HTML
My go-to test for new models is coding a PS5 controller in HTML.
It’s visual, it’s complex, and it instantly reveals how good a model’s reasoning is.
Here’s what happened:
- Gemini 3: Delivered a clickable, functional layout. The analog sticks worked. Buttons were aligned perfectly.
- Claude Opus: Equally solid. Fully interactive, clean structure, and logical formatting.
- GPT 5.2: Completely failed. Non-clickable, misaligned, messy output.
If this was a coding interview, GPT 5.2 wouldn’t pass the first round.
Verdict: Claude and Gemini crushed GPT 5.2 on this test.
Test #2: Writing SEO Content
Next, I tested writing performance using the prompt:
Keyword: “SEO Training Japan” — Write a full article for my agency.
Here’s how they performed:
- Claude Opus 4.5: Wrote a structured, clean article with subheadings, bold keywords, and strong formatting. Even the title was SEO-ready — “SEO Training Japan: The Complete Guide to Ranking in the Japanese Market.”
- Gemini 3: Good flow, strong hooks, slightly generic tone. Still better than GPT.
- GPT 5.2: Weak output. No formatting, no bullet points, and even basic grammar mistakes — missing question marks, dull titles, and unnatural phrasing.
It feels like the model lost its sense of flow and intent. The writing quality actually regressed compared to GPT-4.
Test #3: Landing Page Creation
I ran the same landing page prompt across all models:
“Create a modern, direct-response landing page for my SEO agency, Goldie Agency. Include copy that drives bookings for a free SEO strategy session.”
- Claude Opus: Built a full landing page in HTML, complete with CTAs and clean visual structure. Looked like a real website.
- Gemini 3: Nearly identical — coded and previewed instantly, clean layout, and easy to edit.
- GPT 5.2: Wrote a wall of text instead of code. Even when told to “code it,” it struggled to understand the intent. The result? A messy, broken layout that didn’t resemble a landing page.
This test confirmed what I suspected — GPT 5.2 doesn’t understand user intent well enough to execute creative or structured requests.
The Bigger Problem: Regression
GPT 5.2 feels slower and less coherent than GPT-4.
Formatting is worse. Reasoning feels off.
Even question marks went missing in sentences that were clearly questions.
When I compared outputs from GPT-4, they were cleaner, smarter, and more human.
It’s like we’ve gone backwards a year in capability.
The benchmarks may say GPT 5.2 is better, but in real-world tests, it’s not.
The Only Bright Spot: API Availability
The only real upside? The API is already live on OpenRouter.
That means developers can start integrating GPT 5.2 into tools and systems right now.
But if you’re expecting better writing or smarter code generation — you’ll be disappointed.
Claude Opus and Gemini 3 are still leading the pack for accuracy, output quality, and overall usability.
Which AI Model Should You Use Right Now?
Here’s my honest take:
✅ Use Claude Opus for writing, SEO, and content creation. It’s consistently more natural and well-structured.
✅ Use Gemini 3 for coding, automation, and AI workflows — it’s faster and understands context better.
❌ Avoid GPT 5.2 until OpenAI fixes the quality and formatting issues.
Benchmarks don’t matter if your real-world outputs fail.
Inside the AI Profit Boardroom
If you want the full prompt templates and workflows I used in this video — join the AI Profit Boardroom.
Inside, you’ll get:
✅ Real-world GPT, Claude, and Gemini workflows for agencies.
✅ 200+ AI automations for SEO, outreach, and client systems.
✅ Private community, live coaching calls, and support.
✅ Systems to grow your business with AI, step-by-step.
👉 Join the AI Profit Boardroom
Get a FREE AI Course + 1000 AI Agents 👉 https://www.skool.com/ai-seo-with-julian-goldie-1553/about
Final Thoughts
I wanted GPT 5.2 to win.
I paid for the upgrade, ran the tests, and compared it fairly — but it’s just not good enough right now.
If you care about real results — coding, writing, automation — Claude and Gemini still dominate.
Benchmarks don’t pay your bills.
Working systems do.
