Noometry

Model comparison

Claude 2.1 vs GLM-5.2

GLM-5.2 is the stronger model overall, scoring 51.1 to 25.2 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 5 shared benchmarks.

Claude 2.1 Anthropic

25.2

Rank #345 Reported

GLM-5.2 Z.ai (Zhipu)

51.1

Rank #44 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 5 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude 2.1 scores higher in 0 categories and GLM-5.2 in 4 categories; 4 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in math, where GLM-5.2 leads 55.7 to 10.2.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 1.9% for Claude 2.1 and 86.4% for GLM-5.2.
  • GLM-5.2 has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Claude 2.1GLM-5.2
ProviderAnthropicZ.ai (Zhipu)
Noometry Index25.251.1
Released2023-11-212026-06-13
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window—1M
Max output—131K
Input $ / M tokens—$1.40
Output $ / M tokens—$4.40
Results tracked751

Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry

Category by category

Coding GLM-5.2 leads

Claude 2.1: 26.2 (#327), GLM-5.2: 51.3 (#41)

BenchmarkClaude 2.1GLM-5.2
WeirdML7.1%70.1%
SWE-bench Verified—78.7%
DeepSWE—43.8%
FrontierCode—24.5%
LMArena WebDev—1603
SciCode—50.5%
LMArena Coding—1485
ALE-Bench—1,047

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Claude 2.1: —, GLM-5.2: 32.4 (#63)

BenchmarkClaude 2.1GLM-5.2
APEX-Agents—45.2%
τ²-bench Banking—37.1%
PostTrainBench—31.7%
GBAEval—0%
Vending-Bench 2—8,314

Reasoning GLM-5.2 leads

Claude 2.1: 21.4 (#221), GLM-5.2: 42.3 (#52)

BenchmarkClaude 2.1GLM-5.2
DTBench51%93.6%
Epoch Capabilities Index119.27151.78
ARC-AGI-2—22.8%
SimpleBench—58.8%
Kagi LLM Benchmark—62.6%
NYT Connections (extended)—74.3%
ARC-AGI-1—77%
CritPt—20.9%
Chess Puzzles—21%
EBR-Bench—9.5%
LMArena Hard Prompts—1480
Mystery Game Puzzles—19%
LMCA—45.8%
Surface Evolver Bench—55.6%
ForecastBench54.2—

Math GLM-5.2 leads

Claude 2.1: 10.2 (#315), GLM-5.2: 55.7 (#43)

BenchmarkClaude 2.1GLM-5.2
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-20251.9%86.4%
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)—59.2%
FrontierMath Tier 4—29.3%
MathArena Final-Answer Competitions—67.6%
ProofBench—35%
LMArena Math—1482

Knowledge GLM-5.2 leads

Claude 2.1: 15.4 (#292), GLM-5.2: 57.1 (#40)

BenchmarkClaude 2.1GLM-5.2
GPQA Diamond33%91.9%
SimpleQA Verified—34.2%
LMArena Expert—1486
MMLU73.5%—

Multilingual Not comparable

Claude 2.1: —, GLM-5.2: 55.8 (#26)

BenchmarkClaude 2.1GLM-5.2
LMArena Non-English—1459
LMArena Chinese—1519
LMArena French—1479
LMArena German—1468
LMArena Japanese—1451
LMArena Korean—1445
LMArena Russian—1466
LMArena Spanish—1477

Instruction Following Not comparable

Claude 2.1: —, GLM-5.2: 76.9 (#34)

BenchmarkClaude 2.1GLM-5.2
LMArena Instruction Following—1465

Long Context Not comparable

Claude 2.1: —, GLM-5.2: 45.3 (#43)

BenchmarkClaude 2.1GLM-5.2
LMArena Longer Query—1479

Writing & Preference Not comparable

Claude 2.1: —, GLM-5.2: 70.4 (#21)

BenchmarkClaude 2.1GLM-5.2
LMArena Text—1470
LMArena Creative Writing—1462
EQ-Bench Creative Writing—1757
EQ-Bench 4—1222
LMArena Multi-Turn—1469

Frequently asked questions

Is Claude 2.1 better than GLM-5.2?

GLM-5.2 is the stronger model overall, scoring 51.1 to 25.2 on the Noometry Index.

Is Claude 2.1 or GLM-5.2 better for coding?

GLM-5.2 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 51.3 versus 26.2 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do Claude 2.1 and GLM-5.2 share?

5 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude 2.1 has 7 scored results on Noometry and GLM-5.2 has 51.

Related comparisons

Go deeper