Model comparison
Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025) vs GLM-5.2
GLM-5.2 is the stronger model overall, scoring 51.1 to 35.1 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 26 shared benchmarks.
GoogleSummary
- They share 26 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025) scores higher in 0 categories and GLM-5.2 in 9 categories; 9 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in reasoning, where GLM-5.2 leads 42.3 to 15.2.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is WeirdML: 25.8% for Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025) and 70.1% for GLM-5.2.
- GLM-5.2 has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025) | GLM-5.2 | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Z.ai (Zhipu) | |
| Noometry Index | 35.1 | 51.1 |
| Released | 2024-12-06 | 2026-06-13 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | — | 1M |
| Max output | — | 131K |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | $1.40 |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | $4.40 |
| Results tracked | 54 | 51 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding GLM-5.2 leads
Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025): 28.4 (#315), GLM-5.2: 51.3 (#41)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025) | GLM-5.2 |
|---|---|---|
| WeirdML | 25.8% | 70.1% |
| LMArena Coding | 1350 | 1485 |
| SWE-bench Verified | — | 78.7% |
| DeepSWE | — | 43.8% |
| FrontierCode | — | 24.5% |
| SWE-bench Verified (bash only) | 13.5% | — |
| Aider Polyglot | 38.2% | — |
| LMArena WebDev | — | 1603 |
| SciCode | — | 50.5% |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | 45.9% | — |
| LiveBench Coding | 63.4% | — |
| BigCodeBench Complete | 59.9% | — |
| CadEval | 30% | — |
| ALE-Bench | — | 1,047 |
Agentic & Tool Use GLM-5.2 leads
Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025): 28.1 (#92), GLM-5.2: 32.4 (#63)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025) | GLM-5.2 |
|---|---|---|
| APEX-Agents | — | 45.2% |
| TheAgentCompany | 11.4% | — |
| τ²-bench Banking | — | 37.1% |
| PostTrainBench | — | 31.7% |
| GBAEval | — | 0% |
| Vending-Bench 2 | — | 8,314 |
Reasoning GLM-5.2 leads
Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025): 15.2 (#318), GLM-5.2: 42.3 (#52)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025) | GLM-5.2 |
|---|---|---|
| ARC-AGI-2 | 1.3% | 22.8% |
| SimpleBench | 31.1% | 58.8% |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 37.8% | 62.6% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1346 | 1480 |
| DTBench | 63.2% | 93.6% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 135.36 | 151.78 |
| NYT Connections (extended) | — | 74.3% |
| ARC-AGI-1 | — | 77% |
| CritPt | — | 20.9% |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 21% |
| EnigmaEval | 1.1% | — |
| EBR-Bench | — | 9.5% |
| LiveBench Reasoning | 78.2% | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | — | 19% |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | 69.4% | — |
| LMCA | — | 45.8% |
| Surface Evolver Bench | — | 55.6% |
| LiveBench | 66.9% | — |
Math GLM-5.2 leads
Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025): 37.9 (#146), GLM-5.2: 55.7 (#43)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025) | GLM-5.2 |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 57.8% | 86.4% |
| LMArena Math | 1352 | 1482 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | — | 59.2% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | — | 29.3% |
| MathArena Final-Answer Competitions | — | 67.6% |
| ProofBench | — | 35% |
| Omni-MATH | 45.9% | — |
| LiveBench Math | 75.8% | — |
| MATH Level 5 | 82.2% | — |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 1.7% | — |
Knowledge GLM-5.2 leads
Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025): 32.0 (#213), GLM-5.2: 57.1 (#40)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025) | GLM-5.2 |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 64.1% | 91.9% |
| LMArena Expert | 1339 | 1486 |
| Humanity's Last Exam | 6.6% | — |
| SimpleQA Verified | — | 34.2% |
| MMLU-Pro | 73.7% | — |
| Confabulations | 12.4% | — |
| GPQA (HELM) | 55.6% | — |
| MMLU | 79.7% | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025): 36.5 (#79), GLM-5.2: —
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025) | GLM-5.2 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1158 | — |
| GeoBench | 77% | — |
Multilingual GLM-5.2 leads
Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025): 47.4 (#149), GLM-5.2: 55.8 (#26)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025) | GLM-5.2 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1342 | 1459 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1373 | 1519 |
| LMArena French | 1391 | 1479 |
| LMArena German | 1353 | 1468 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1294 | 1451 |
| LMArena Korean | 1313 | 1445 |
| LMArena Russian | 1351 | 1466 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1363 | 1477 |
Instruction Following GLM-5.2 leads
Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025): 74.4 (#97), GLM-5.2: 76.9 (#34)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025) | GLM-5.2 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1336 | 1465 |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | 85.8% | — |
| IFEval | 84.1% | — |
Long Context GLM-5.2 leads
Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025): 38.1 (#203), GLM-5.2: 45.3 (#43)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025) | GLM-5.2 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1344 | 1479 |
| Fiction.LiveBench | 61.1% | — |
Writing & Preference GLM-5.2 leads
Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025): 49.5 (#190), GLM-5.2: 70.4 (#21)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025) | GLM-5.2 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1354 | 1470 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1340 | 1462 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1128 | 1757 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1350 | 1469 |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | 73.8% | — |
| WildBench | 80% | — |
| EQ-Bench 4 | — | 1222 |
| LiveBench Language | 51.3% | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025) better than GLM-5.2?
GLM-5.2 is the stronger model overall, scoring 51.1 to 35.1 on the Noometry Index.
Is Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025) or GLM-5.2 better for coding?
GLM-5.2 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 51.3 versus 28.4 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025) and GLM-5.2 share?
26 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025) has 54 scored results on Noometry and GLM-5.2 has 51.