Model comparison
GLM-5.2 vs GPT-5.5 Pro
GPT-5.5 Pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 64.3 to 51.1 on the Noometry Index. GLM-5.2 costs 31× less per token, which makes it the better buy when GPT-5.5 Pro's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 12 shared benchmarks.
Summary
- They share 12 benchmarks with published results for both. GLM-5.2 scores higher in 0 categories and GPT-5.5 Pro in 3 categories; 3 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in reasoning, where GPT-5.5 Pro leads 73.3 to 42.3.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is ARC-AGI-2: 22.8% for GLM-5.2 and 84.6% for GPT-5.5 Pro.
- GLM-5.2 is cheaper at $1.40 / $4.40 per million input/output tokens, against $30 / $180 for GPT-5.5 Pro.
- GPT-5.5 Pro accepts more context: 1.05M tokens versus 1M.
- GLM-5.2 has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| GLM-5.2 | GPT-5.5 Pro | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Z.ai (Zhipu) | OpenAI |
| Noometry Index | 51.1 | 64.3 |
| Released | 2026-06-13 | 2026-04-23 |
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |
| Context window | 1M | 1.05M |
| Max output | 131K | 128K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $1.40 | $30 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $4.40 | $180 |
| Results tracked | 51 | 14 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Not comparable
GLM-5.2: 51.3 (#41), GPT-5.5 Pro: —
| Benchmark | GLM-5.2 | GPT-5.5 Pro |
|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench Verified | 78.7% | — |
| DeepSWE | 43.8% | — |
| FrontierCode | 24.5% | — |
| LMArena WebDev | 1603 | — |
| SciCode | 50.5% | — |
| WeirdML | 70.1% | — |
| LMArena Coding | 1485 | — |
| ALE-Bench | 1,047 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
GLM-5.2: 32.4 (#63), GPT-5.5 Pro: —
| Benchmark | GLM-5.2 | GPT-5.5 Pro |
|---|---|---|
| APEX-Agents | 45.2% | — |
| τ²-bench Banking | 37.1% | — |
| PostTrainBench | 31.7% | — |
| GBAEval | 0% | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | 8,314 | — |
Reasoning GPT-5.5 Pro leads
GLM-5.2: 42.3 (#52), GPT-5.5 Pro: 73.3 (#10)
| Benchmark | GLM-5.2 | GPT-5.5 Pro |
|---|---|---|
| ARC-AGI-2 | 22.8% | 84.6% |
| SimpleBench | 58.8% | 76.9% |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 77% | 96.5% |
| CritPt | 20.9% | 30.6% |
| Chess Puzzles | 21% | 64% |
| DTBench | 93.6% | 96% |
| LMCA | 45.8% | 53.9% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 151.78 | 162.07 |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 62.6% | — |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 74.3% | — |
| EBR-Bench | 9.5% | — |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1480 | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 19% | — |
| Surface Evolver Bench | 55.6% | — |
Math GPT-5.5 Pro leads
GLM-5.2: 55.7 (#43), GPT-5.5 Pro: 84.0 (#10)
| Benchmark | GLM-5.2 | GPT-5.5 Pro |
|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 59.2% | 87.7% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 29.3% | 78% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 86.4% | 100% |
| MathArena Final-Answer Competitions | 67.6% | — |
| ProofBench | 35% | — |
| LMArena Math | 1482 | — |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | — | 52.4% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | — | 39.6% |
Knowledge GPT-5.5 Pro leads
GLM-5.2: 57.1 (#40), GPT-5.5 Pro: 64.1 (#19)
| Benchmark | GLM-5.2 | GPT-5.5 Pro |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 91.9% | 93.9% |
| SimpleQA Verified | 34.2% | — |
| LMArena Expert | 1486 | — |
Multilingual Not comparable
GLM-5.2: 55.8 (#26), GPT-5.5 Pro: —
| Benchmark | GLM-5.2 | GPT-5.5 Pro |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1459 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 1519 | — |
| LMArena French | 1479 | — |
| LMArena German | 1468 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1451 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1445 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1466 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1477 | — |
Instruction Following Not comparable
GLM-5.2: 76.9 (#34), GPT-5.5 Pro: —
| Benchmark | GLM-5.2 | GPT-5.5 Pro |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1465 | — |
Long Context Not comparable
GLM-5.2: 45.3 (#43), GPT-5.5 Pro: —
| Benchmark | GLM-5.2 | GPT-5.5 Pro |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1479 | — |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
GLM-5.2: 70.4 (#21), GPT-5.5 Pro: —
| Benchmark | GLM-5.2 | GPT-5.5 Pro |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1470 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1462 | — |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1757 | — |
| EQ-Bench 4 | 1222 | — |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1469 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is GLM-5.2 better than GPT-5.5 Pro?
GPT-5.5 Pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 64.3 to 51.1 on the Noometry Index. GLM-5.2 costs 31× less per token, which makes it the better buy when GPT-5.5 Pro's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, GLM-5.2 or GPT-5.5 Pro?
GLM-5.2 is cheaper. It lists at $1.40 per million input tokens and $4.40 per million output tokens; GPT-5.5 Pro lists at $30 and $180.
Which has the bigger context window?
GPT-5.5 Pro does, with 1.05M tokens against 1M.
How many benchmarks do GLM-5.2 and GPT-5.5 Pro share?
12 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-5.2 has 51 scored results on Noometry and GPT-5.5 Pro has 14.