Model comparison

GLM-4.6V vs GPT-5.2 Codex

GPT-5.2 Codex is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.6 to 41.3 on the Noometry Index. GLM-4.6V costs 11× less per token, which makes it the better buy when GPT-5.2 Codex's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Last verified . 0 shared benchmarks.

GLM-4.6V Z.ai (Zhipu)

41.3

Rank #137 Confirmed

GPT-5.2 Codex OpenAI

42.6

Rank #111 Reported

Summary

  • The widest gap is in coding, where GPT-5.2 Codex leads 45.5 to 40.9.
  • GLM-4.6V is cheaper at $0.30 / $0.90 per million input/output tokens, against $1.75 / $14 for GPT-5.2 Codex.
  • GPT-5.2 Codex accepts more context: 400K tokens versus 128K.
  • GLM-4.6V has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

GLM-4.6V and GPT-5.2 Codex specifications
GLM-4.6VGPT-5.2 Codex
ProviderZ.ai (Zhipu)OpenAI
Noometry Index41.342.6
Released2025-12-082025-12-18
WeightsOpenProprietary
Context window128K400K
Max output33K128K
Input $ / M tokens$0.30$1.75
Output $ / M tokens$0.90$14
Results tracked125

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

Category by category

Coding GPT-5.2 Codex leads

GLM-4.6V: 40.9 (#128), GPT-5.2 Codex: 45.5 (#71)

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-4.6VGPT-5.2 Codex
SWE-bench Verified (bash only)—72.8%
LMArena WebDev—1339
SWE-bench Multilingual—66.3%
LMArena Coding1390—
ALE-Bench—1,300

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

GLM-4.6V: —, GPT-5.2 Codex: 41.0 (#22)

Agentic & Tool Use benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-4.6VGPT-5.2 Codex
Terminal-Bench—66.5%

Reasoning Not comparable

GLM-4.6V: 27.6 (#115), GPT-5.2 Codex: —

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-4.6VGPT-5.2 Codex
LMArena Hard Prompts1368—

Knowledge Not comparable

GLM-4.6V: 38.0 (#149), GPT-5.2 Codex: —

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-4.6VGPT-5.2 Codex
LMArena Expert1371—

Multimodal Not comparable

GLM-4.6V: 34.8 (#90), GPT-5.2 Codex: —

Multimodal benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-4.6VGPT-5.2 Codex
LMArena Vision1164—

Multilingual Not comparable

GLM-4.6V: 48.6 (#141), GPT-5.2 Codex: —

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-4.6VGPT-5.2 Codex
LMArena Non-English1359—
LMArena Chinese1425—
LMArena Russian1340—

Instruction Following Not comparable

GLM-4.6V: 71.4 (#151), GPT-5.2 Codex: —

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-4.6VGPT-5.2 Codex
LMArena Instruction Following1352—

Long Context Not comparable

GLM-4.6V: 41.3 (#143), GPT-5.2 Codex: —

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-4.6VGPT-5.2 Codex
LMArena Longer Query1358—

Writing & Preference Not comparable

GLM-4.6V: 56.6 (#137), GPT-5.2 Codex: —

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-4.6VGPT-5.2 Codex
LMArena Text1377—
LMArena Creative Writing1347—
LMArena Multi-Turn1360—

Frequently asked questions

Is GLM-4.6V better than GPT-5.2 Codex?

GPT-5.2 Codex is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.6 to 41.3 on the Noometry Index. GLM-4.6V costs 11× less per token, which makes it the better buy when GPT-5.2 Codex's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Which is cheaper, GLM-4.6V or GPT-5.2 Codex?

GLM-4.6V is cheaper. It lists at $0.30 per million input tokens and $0.90 per million output tokens; GPT-5.2 Codex lists at $1.75 and $14.

Is GLM-4.6V or GPT-5.2 Codex better for coding?

GPT-5.2 Codex scores higher on coding benchmarks: 45.5 versus 40.9 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

GPT-5.2 Codex does, with 400K tokens against 128K.

How many benchmarks do GLM-4.6V and GPT-5.2 Codex share?

0 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-4.6V has 12 scored results on Noometry and GPT-5.2 Codex has 5.

Related comparisons

Go deeper