Model comparison
GLM-4.7-Flash vs GPT-5.2 Pro
GPT-5.2 Pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 52.2 to 38.4 on the Noometry Index. GLM-4.7-Flash costs 398× less per token, which makes it the better buy when GPT-5.2 Pro's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 0 shared benchmarks.
Summary
- The widest gap is in reasoning, where GPT-5.2 Pro leads 51.8 to 20.2.
- GLM-4.7-Flash is cheaper at $0.06 / $0.40 per million input/output tokens, against $21 / $168 for GPT-5.2 Pro.
- GPT-5.2 Pro accepts more context: 400K tokens versus 200K.
- GLM-4.7-Flash has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| GLM-4.7-Flash | GPT-5.2 Pro | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Z.ai (Zhipu) | OpenAI |
| Noometry Index | 38.4 | 52.2 |
| Released | 2026-01-19 | 2025-12-11 |
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |
| Context window | 200K | 400K |
| Max output | 131K | 128K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.06 | $21 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $0.40 | $168 |
| Results tracked | 21 | 8 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Not comparable
GLM-4.7-Flash: 40.0 (#133), GPT-5.2 Pro: —
| Benchmark | GLM-4.7-Flash | GPT-5.2 Pro |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1383 | — |
Reasoning GPT-5.2 Pro leads
GLM-4.7-Flash: 20.2 (#224), GPT-5.2 Pro: 51.8 (#31)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.7-Flash | GPT-5.2 Pro |
|---|---|---|
| ARC-AGI-2 | — | 54.2% |
| SimpleBench | — | 57.4% |
| NYT Connections (extended) | — | 79.3% |
| ARC-AGI-1 | — | 90.5% |
| Chess Puzzles | 0% | — |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1356 | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 155.41 |
Math GPT-5.2 Pro leads
GLM-4.7-Flash: 34.4 (#159), GPT-5.2 Pro: 64.8 (#23)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.7-Flash | GPT-5.2 Pro |
|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | — | 74% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | — | 46% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 58.3% | — |
| LMArena Math | 1354 | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | — | 31.3% |
Knowledge Not comparable
GLM-4.7-Flash: 35.4 (#177), GPT-5.2 Pro: —
| Benchmark | GLM-4.7-Flash | GPT-5.2 Pro |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 60.5% | — |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 9.3% | — |
| LMArena Expert | 1357 | — |
Multilingual Not comparable
GLM-4.7-Flash: 46.8 (#152), GPT-5.2 Pro: —
| Benchmark | GLM-4.7-Flash | GPT-5.2 Pro |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1331 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 1403 | — |
| LMArena French | 1332 | — |
| LMArena German | 1336 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1284 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1333 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1351 | — |
Instruction Following Not comparable
GLM-4.7-Flash: 70.3 (#162), GPT-5.2 Pro: —
| Benchmark | GLM-4.7-Flash | GPT-5.2 Pro |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1327 | — |
Long Context Not comparable
GLM-4.7-Flash: 40.9 (#143), GPT-5.2 Pro: —
| Benchmark | GLM-4.7-Flash | GPT-5.2 Pro |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1345 | — |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
GLM-4.7-Flash: 47.7 (#206), GPT-5.2 Pro: —
| Benchmark | GLM-4.7-Flash | GPT-5.2 Pro |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1351 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1297 | — |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1125 | — |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1342 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is GLM-4.7-Flash better than GPT-5.2 Pro?
GPT-5.2 Pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 52.2 to 38.4 on the Noometry Index. GLM-4.7-Flash costs 398× less per token, which makes it the better buy when GPT-5.2 Pro's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, GLM-4.7-Flash or GPT-5.2 Pro?
GLM-4.7-Flash is cheaper. It lists at $0.06 per million input tokens and $0.40 per million output tokens; GPT-5.2 Pro lists at $21 and $168.
Which has the bigger context window?
GPT-5.2 Pro does, with 400K tokens against 200K.
How many benchmarks do GLM-4.7-Flash and GPT-5.2 Pro share?
0 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-4.7-Flash has 21 scored results on Noometry and GPT-5.2 Pro has 8.