Noometry

Model comparison

Gemini 2.5 Pro vs GLM-5.2

GLM-5.2 is the stronger model overall, scoring 51.1 to 45.0 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 38 shared benchmarks.

Gemini 2.5 Pro Google

45.0

Rank #75 Confirmed

GLM-5.2 Z.ai (Zhipu)

51.1

Rank #44 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 38 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemini 2.5 Pro scores higher in 1 category and GLM-5.2 in 8 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in math, where GLM-5.2 leads 55.7 to 32.5.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is ARC-AGI-1: 41% for Gemini 2.5 Pro and 77% for GLM-5.2.
  • GLM-5.2 is cheaper at $1.40 / $4.40 per million input/output tokens, against $1.25 / $10 for Gemini 2.5 Pro.
  • Gemini 2.5 Pro accepts more context: 1.05M tokens versus 1M.
  • GLM-5.2 has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Gemini 2.5 ProGLM-5.2
ProviderGoogleZ.ai (Zhipu)
Noometry Index45.051.1
Released2025-03-252026-06-13
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window1.05M1M
Max output66K131K
Input $ / M tokens$1.25$1.40
Output $ / M tokens$10$4.40
Results tracked7851

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

Category by category

Coding GLM-5.2 leads

Gemini 2.5 Pro: 42.4 (#101), GLM-5.2: 51.3 (#41)

BenchmarkGemini 2.5 ProGLM-5.2
SWE-bench Verified57.6%78.7%
LMArena WebDev12271603
SciCode42.8%50.5%
WeirdML54%70.1%
LMArena Coding14521485
ALE-Bench785.521,047
DeepSWE—43.8%
FrontierCode—24.5%
SWE-bench Verified (bash only)53.6%—
Aider Polyglot83.1%—
GSO3.9%—
LiveBench Coding85.9%—
CadEval64%—
AlgoTune1.51—

Agentic & Tool Use GLM-5.2 leads

Gemini 2.5 Pro: 29.2 (#88), GLM-5.2: 32.4 (#63)

BenchmarkGemini 2.5 ProGLM-5.2
τ²-bench Banking13.7%37.1%
Vending-Bench 2573.648,314
Terminal-Bench32.6%—
APEX-Agents—45.2%
GDPval23.3%—
Remote Labor Index0.8%—
TheAgentCompany30.3%—
DeepResearch Bench42.8%—
PostTrainBench—31.7%
BALROG43.3%—
GBAEval—0%
LMArena Search1142—
METR Time Horizons55.4%—

Reasoning GLM-5.2 leads

Gemini 2.5 Pro: 28.8 (#99), GLM-5.2: 42.3 (#52)

BenchmarkGemini 2.5 ProGLM-5.2
ARC-AGI-24.9%22.8%
SimpleBench62.4%58.8%
Kagi LLM Benchmark70.3%62.6%
ARC-AGI-141%77%
CritPt2%20.9%
Chess Puzzles20%21%
LMArena Hard Prompts14551480
DTBench82.4%93.6%
LMCA34.8%45.8%
Epoch Capabilities Index145.32151.78
NYT Connections (extended)—74.3%
EnigmaEval5.6%—
EBR-Bench—9.5%
LiveBench Reasoning89.8%—
Mystery Game Puzzles—19%
LiveBench Data Analysis79.9%—
Surface Evolver Bench—55.6%
ForecastBench61.3—
LiveBench82.3%—

Math GLM-5.2 leads

Gemini 2.5 Pro: 32.5 (#213), GLM-5.2: 55.7 (#43)

BenchmarkGemini 2.5 ProGLM-5.2
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)24.6%59.2%
FrontierMath Tier 40%29.3%
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202584.7%86.4%
LMArena Math14501482
MathArena Final-Answer Competitions—67.6%
ProofBench—35%
Omni-MATH41.6%—
LiveBench Math90.2%—
MATH Level 595.9%—
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)14.1%—
FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1)4.2%—

Knowledge GLM-5.2 leads

Gemini 2.5 Pro: 56.0 (#46), GLM-5.2: 57.1 (#40)

BenchmarkGemini 2.5 ProGLM-5.2
GPQA Diamond85.3%91.9%
LMArena Expert14521486
Humanity's Last Exam21.6%—
SimpleQA Verified—34.2%
MMLU-Pro86.3%—
Confabulations10.6%—
Vectara Hallucination Rate7%—
GPQA (HELM)74.9%—

Multimodal Not comparable

Gemini 2.5 Pro: 45.2 (#18), GLM-5.2: —

BenchmarkGemini 2.5 ProGLM-5.2
LMArena Vision1263—
GeoBench86%—
VPCT48%—
LMArena Document1421—
SpatialViz-Bench44.7%—

Multilingual Too close to call

Gemini 2.5 Pro: 55.3 (#31), GLM-5.2: 55.8 (#26)

BenchmarkGemini 2.5 ProGLM-5.2
LMArena Non-English14511459
LMArena Chinese15071519
LMArena French14721479
LMArena German14871468
LMArena Japanese14611451
LMArena Korean14341445
LMArena Russian14611466
LMArena Spanish14731477

Instruction Following GLM-5.2 leads

Gemini 2.5 Pro: 75.0 (#75), GLM-5.2: 76.9 (#34)

BenchmarkGemini 2.5 ProGLM-5.2
LMArena Instruction Following14371465
LiveBench Instruction Following80.6%—
IFEval84%—

Long Context Gemini 2.5 Pro leads

Gemini 2.5 Pro: 59.8 (#5), GLM-5.2: 45.3 (#43)

BenchmarkGemini 2.5 ProGLM-5.2
LMArena Longer Query14491479
Fiction.LiveBench91.7%—

Writing & Preference GLM-5.2 leads

Gemini 2.5 Pro: 63.7 (#62), GLM-5.2: 70.4 (#21)

BenchmarkGemini 2.5 ProGLM-5.2
LMArena Text14581470
LMArena Creative Writing14541462
EQ-Bench Creative Writing14211757
LMArena Multi-Turn14531469
Short-Story Creative Writing83.8%—
WildBench85.7%—
EQ-Bench 4—1222
LiveBench Language67.8%—

Frequently asked questions

Is Gemini 2.5 Pro better than GLM-5.2?

GLM-5.2 is the stronger model overall, scoring 51.1 to 45.0 on the Noometry Index.

Which is cheaper, Gemini 2.5 Pro or GLM-5.2?

GLM-5.2 is cheaper. It lists at $1.40 per million input tokens and $4.40 per million output tokens; Gemini 2.5 Pro lists at $1.25 and $10.

Is Gemini 2.5 Pro or GLM-5.2 better for coding?

GLM-5.2 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 51.3 versus 42.4 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Gemini 2.5 Pro does, with 1.05M tokens against 1M.

How many benchmarks do Gemini 2.5 Pro and GLM-5.2 share?

38 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemini 2.5 Pro has 78 scored results on Noometry and GLM-5.2 has 51.

Related comparisons

Go deeper