Model comparison
Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite vs GLM-5
GLM-5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 46.1 to 41.5 on the Noometry Index. Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite costs 1.8× less per token, which makes it the better buy when GLM-5's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 28 shared benchmarks.
GoogleSummary
- They share 28 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite scores higher in 1 category and GLM-5 in 8 categories; 5 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where GLM-5 leads 46.4 to 25.9.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is NYT Connections (extended): 60.4% for Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite and 74.8% for GLM-5.
- Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite is cheaper at $0.30 / $2.50 per million input/output tokens, against $1 / $3.20 for GLM-5.
- Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite accepts more context: 1.05M tokens versus 205K.
- GLM-5 has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite | GLM-5 | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Z.ai (Zhipu) | |
| Noometry Index | 41.5 | 46.1 |
| Released | 2026-07-21 | 2026-02-11 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | 1.05M | 205K |
| Max output | 66K | 131K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.30 | $1 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $2.50 | $3.20 |
| Results tracked | 39 | 45 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding GLM-5 leads
Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite: 42.4 (#104), GLM-5: 49.0 (#52)
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite | GLM-5 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena WebDev | 1440 | 1434 |
| WeirdML | 39% | 48.2% |
| LMArena Coding | 1453 | 1461 |
| ALE-Bench | 765.27 | 765.62 |
| SWE-bench Verified | — | 72.1% |
| SWE-bench Verified (bash only) | — | 72.8% |
| SWE-bench Multilingual | — | 69.7% |
| SciCode | 41.3% | — |
Agentic & Tool Use GLM-5 leads
Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite: 25.7 (#107), GLM-5: 31.1 (#71)
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite | GLM-5 |
|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench | — | 52.4% |
| APEX-Agents | 29.3% | — |
| τ²-bench Airline | — | 82.5% |
| τ²-bench Banking | — | 9.8% |
| τ²-bench Retail | — | 73.7% |
| τ²-bench Telecom | — | 86.8% |
| GDP.pdf | 10% | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | — | 4,432 |
Reasoning Too close to call
Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite: 27.8 (#114), GLM-5: 27.6 (#116)
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite | GLM-5 |
|---|---|---|
| ARC-AGI-2 | 10.3% | 4.9% |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 60.4% | 74.8% |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 53.5% | 44.7% |
| Chess Puzzles | 22% | 10% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1441 | 1452 |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 145.13 | 145.83 |
| SimpleBench | — | 53.2% |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | — | 75% |
| CritPt | 0% | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 19% | — |
| DTBench | 83.5% | — |
| LMCA | 37.6% | — |
| ForecastBench | — | 61 |
Math GLM-5 leads
Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite: 25.9 (#264), GLM-5: 46.4 (#71)
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite | GLM-5 |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 71.1% | 80% |
| LMArena Math | 1433 | 1440 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 26% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 0% | — |
| MathArena Final-Answer Competitions | — | 65.7% |
| ProofBench | 13% | — |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | — | 16.4% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | — | 2.1% |
Knowledge GLM-5 leads
Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite: 50.1 (#72), GLM-5: 52.3 (#64)
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite | GLM-5 |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 83.3% | 87.8% |
| LMArena Expert | 1435 | 1454 |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | — | 10.1% |
Multimodal Not comparable
Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite: 41.1 (#40), GLM-5: —
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite | GLM-5 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1268 | — |
Multilingual Too close to call
Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite: 53.5 (#63), GLM-5: 53.7 (#58)
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite | GLM-5 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1427 | 1430 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1469 | 1511 |
| LMArena French | 1451 | 1455 |
| LMArena German | 1454 | 1445 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1427 | 1416 |
| LMArena Korean | 1407 | 1423 |
| LMArena Russian | 1443 | 1436 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1442 | 1454 |
Instruction Following Too close to call
Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite: 74.8 (#85), GLM-5: 75.2 (#67)
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite | GLM-5 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1420 | 1428 |
Long Context Too close to call
Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite: 43.9 (#84), GLM-5: 44.7 (#60)
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite | GLM-5 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1435 | 1446 |
| CL-bench | — | 18.7% |
Writing & Preference GLM-5 leads
Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite: 64.2 (#57), GLM-5: 66.0 (#38)
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite | GLM-5 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1435 | 1446 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1420 | 1439 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1559 | 1601 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1445 | 1456 |
Frequently asked questions
Is Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite better than GLM-5?
GLM-5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 46.1 to 41.5 on the Noometry Index. Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite costs 1.8× less per token, which makes it the better buy when GLM-5's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite or GLM-5?
Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite is cheaper. It lists at $0.30 per million input tokens and $2.50 per million output tokens; GLM-5 lists at $1 and $3.20.
Is Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite or GLM-5 better for coding?
GLM-5 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 49.0 versus 42.4 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite does, with 1.05M tokens against 205K.
How many benchmarks do Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite and GLM-5 share?
28 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite has 39 scored results on Noometry and GLM-5 has 45.