Model comparison
Claude 2 vs GLM-5.2
GLM-5.2 is the stronger model overall, scoring 51.1 to 25.0 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 4 shared benchmarks.
Summary
- They share 4 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude 2 scores higher in 0 categories and GLM-5.2 in 3 categories; 3 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where GLM-5.2 leads 55.7 to 9.3.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 2.5% for Claude 2 and 86.4% for GLM-5.2.
- GLM-5.2 has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Claude 2 | GLM-5.2 | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | Z.ai (Zhipu) |
| Noometry Index | 25.0 | 51.1 |
| Released | 2023-07-11 | 2026-06-13 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | — | 1M |
| Max output | — | 131K |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | $1.40 |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | $4.40 |
| Results tracked | 8 | 51 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Not comparable
Claude 2: —, GLM-5.2: 51.3 (#41)
| Benchmark | Claude 2 | GLM-5.2 |
|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench Verified | — | 78.7% |
| DeepSWE | — | 43.8% |
| FrontierCode | — | 24.5% |
| LMArena WebDev | — | 1603 |
| SciCode | — | 50.5% |
| WeirdML | — | 70.1% |
| LMArena Coding | — | 1485 |
| ALE-Bench | — | 1,047 |
| HumanEval+ | 61.6% | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Claude 2: —, GLM-5.2: 32.4 (#63)
| Benchmark | Claude 2 | GLM-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: 21.7 (#216), GLM-5.2: 42.3 (#52)
| Benchmark | Claude 2 | GLM-5.2 |
|---|---|---|
| DTBench | 51.9% | 93.6% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 120.13 | 151.78 |
| 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% |
Math GLM-5.2 leads
Claude 2: 9.3 (#320), GLM-5.2: 55.7 (#43)
| Benchmark | Claude 2 | GLM-5.2 |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 2.5% | 86.4% |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | — | 59.2% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | — | 29.3% |
| MathArena Final-Answer Competitions | — | 67.6% |
| ProofBench | — | 35% |
| LMArena Math | — | 1482 |
| MATH Level 5 | 11.7% | — |
Knowledge GLM-5.2 leads
Claude 2: 16.9 (#287), GLM-5.2: 57.1 (#40)
| Benchmark | Claude 2 | GLM-5.2 |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 34.7% | 91.9% |
| SimpleQA Verified | — | 34.2% |
| LMArena Expert | — | 1486 |
| MMLU | 78.5% | — |
| TriviaQA | 87.5% | — |
Multilingual Not comparable
Claude 2: —, GLM-5.2: 55.8 (#26)
| Benchmark | Claude 2 | GLM-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: —, GLM-5.2: 76.9 (#34)
| Benchmark | Claude 2 | GLM-5.2 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | — | 1465 |
Long Context Not comparable
Claude 2: —, GLM-5.2: 45.3 (#43)
| Benchmark | Claude 2 | GLM-5.2 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | — | 1479 |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
Claude 2: —, GLM-5.2: 70.4 (#21)
| Benchmark | Claude 2 | GLM-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 better than GLM-5.2?
GLM-5.2 is the stronger model overall, scoring 51.1 to 25.0 on the Noometry Index.
How many benchmarks do Claude 2 and GLM-5.2 share?
4 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude 2 has 8 scored results on Noometry and GLM-5.2 has 51.