Model comparison
GLM-4.5 vs GLM-5.2
GLM-5.2 is the stronger model overall, scoring 51.1 to 42.0 on the Noometry Index. GLM-4.5 costs 2.1× less per token, which makes it the better buy when GLM-5.2's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 21 shared benchmarks.
Summary
- They share 21 benchmarks with published results for both. GLM-4.5 scores higher in 0 categories and GLM-5.2 in 8 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in knowledge, where GLM-5.2 leads 57.1 to 35.9.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is WeirdML: 40.6% for GLM-4.5 and 70.1% for GLM-5.2.
- GLM-4.5 is cheaper at $0.60 / $2.20 per million input/output tokens, against $1.40 / $4.40 for GLM-5.2.
- GLM-5.2 accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 131K.
Side by side
| GLM-4.5 | GLM-5.2 | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Z.ai (Zhipu) | Z.ai (Zhipu) |
| Noometry Index | 42.0 | 51.1 |
| Released | 2025-07-27 | 2026-06-13 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | 131K | 1M |
| Max output | 98K | 131K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.60 | $1.40 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $2.20 | $4.40 |
| Results tracked | 27 | 51 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding GLM-5.2 leads
GLM-4.5: 41.4 (#125), GLM-5.2: 51.3 (#41)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.5 | GLM-5.2 |
|---|---|---|
| WeirdML | 40.6% | 70.1% |
| LMArena Coding | 1434 | 1485 |
| ALE-Bench | 344.82 | 1,047 |
| SWE-bench Verified | — | 78.7% |
| DeepSWE | — | 43.8% |
| FrontierCode | — | 24.5% |
| SWE-bench Verified (bash only) | 54.2% | — |
| LMArena WebDev | — | 1603 |
| SciCode | — | 50.5% |
| AlgoTune | 1.52 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
GLM-4.5: —, GLM-5.2: 32.4 (#63)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.5 | 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
GLM-4.5: 28.6 (#100), GLM-5.2: 42.3 (#52)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.5 | GLM-5.2 |
|---|---|---|
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 57.9% | 62.6% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1429 | 1480 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | — | 22.8% |
| SimpleBench | — | 58.8% |
| NYT Connections (extended) | — | 74.3% |
| ARC-AGI-1 | — | 77% |
| CritPt | — | 20.9% |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 21% |
| EBR-Bench | — | 9.5% |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | — | 19% |
| DTBench | — | 93.6% |
| LMCA | — | 45.8% |
| Surface Evolver Bench | — | 55.6% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 151.78 |
Math GLM-5.2 leads
GLM-4.5: 39.0 (#116), GLM-5.2: 55.7 (#43)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.5 | GLM-5.2 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1427 | 1482 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | — | 59.2% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | — | 29.3% |
| MathArena Final-Answer Competitions | — | 67.6% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 86.4% |
| ProofBench | — | 35% |
Knowledge GLM-5.2 leads
GLM-4.5: 35.9 (#179), GLM-5.2: 57.1 (#40)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.5 | GLM-5.2 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1433 | 1486 |
| GPQA Diamond | — | 91.9% |
| Humanity's Last Exam | 8.3% | — |
| SimpleQA Verified | — | 34.2% |
| Confabulations | 11.3% | — |
Multilingual GLM-5.2 leads
GLM-4.5: 52.8 (#77), GLM-5.2: 55.8 (#26)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.5 | GLM-5.2 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1417 | 1459 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1465 | 1519 |
| LMArena French | 1418 | 1479 |
| LMArena German | 1407 | 1468 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1415 | 1451 |
| LMArena Korean | 1380 | 1445 |
| LMArena Russian | 1414 | 1466 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1454 | 1477 |
Instruction Following GLM-5.2 leads
GLM-4.5: 74.1 (#104), GLM-5.2: 76.9 (#34)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.5 | GLM-5.2 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1404 | 1465 |
Long Context GLM-5.2 leads
GLM-4.5: 38.2 (#201), GLM-5.2: 45.3 (#43)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.5 | GLM-5.2 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1412 | 1479 |
| Fiction.LiveBench | 58.3% | — |
Writing & Preference GLM-5.2 leads
GLM-4.5: 57.5 (#127), GLM-5.2: 70.4 (#21)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.5 | GLM-5.2 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1430 | 1470 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1395 | 1462 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1343 | 1757 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1415 | 1469 |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | 73.4% | — |
| EQ-Bench 4 | — | 1222 |
Frequently asked questions
Is GLM-4.5 better than GLM-5.2?
GLM-5.2 is the stronger model overall, scoring 51.1 to 42.0 on the Noometry Index. GLM-4.5 costs 2.1× less per token, which makes it the better buy when GLM-5.2's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, GLM-4.5 or GLM-5.2?
GLM-4.5 is cheaper. It lists at $0.60 per million input tokens and $2.20 per million output tokens; GLM-5.2 lists at $1.40 and $4.40.
Is GLM-4.5 or GLM-5.2 better for coding?
GLM-5.2 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 51.3 versus 41.4 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
GLM-5.2 does, with 1M tokens against 131K.
How many benchmarks do GLM-4.5 and GLM-5.2 share?
21 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-4.5 has 27 scored results on Noometry and GLM-5.2 has 51.