Model comparison
GLM-5.2 vs GPT-6 Sol
GPT-6 Sol is the stronger model overall, scoring 61.8 to 51.1 on the Noometry Index. GLM-5.2 costs 1.9× less per token, which makes it the better buy when GPT-6 Sol's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 40 shared benchmarks.
Summary
- They share 40 benchmarks with published results for both. GLM-5.2 scores higher in 3 categories and GPT-6 Sol in 6 categories; 9 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in reasoning, where GPT-6 Sol leads 74.0 to 42.3.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is ARC-AGI-2: 22.8% for GLM-5.2 and 89.6% for GPT-6 Sol.
- GLM-5.2 is cheaper at $1.40 / $4.40 per million input/output tokens, against $2 / $10 for GPT-6 Sol.
- GPT-6 Sol 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-6 Sol | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Z.ai (Zhipu) | OpenAI |
| Noometry Index | 51.1 | 61.8 |
| Released | 2026-06-13 | 2026-09-22 |
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |
| Context window | 1M | 1.05M |
| Max output | 131K | 128K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $1.40 | $2 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $4.40 | $10 |
| Results tracked | 51 | 45 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding GPT-6 Sol leads
GLM-5.2: 51.3 (#41), GPT-6 Sol: 60.1 (#11)
| Benchmark | GLM-5.2 | GPT-6 Sol |
|---|---|---|
| DeepSWE | 43.8% | 68.8% |
| FrontierCode | 24.5% | 49.3% |
| LMArena WebDev | 1603 | 1688 |
| SciCode | 50.5% | 57.6% |
| LMArena Coding | 1485 | 1447 |
| ALE-Bench | 1,047 | 2,462 |
| SWE-bench Verified | 78.7% | — |
| WeirdML | 70.1% | — |
Agentic & Tool Use GPT-6 Sol leads
GLM-5.2: 32.4 (#63), GPT-6 Sol: 37.2 (#36)
| Benchmark | GLM-5.2 | GPT-6 Sol |
|---|---|---|
| APEX-Agents | 45.2% | 54.3% |
| Vending-Bench 2 | 8,314 | 14,428 |
| τ²-bench Banking | 37.1% | — |
| PostTrainBench | 31.7% | — |
| GBAEval | 0% | — |
| GDP.pdf | — | 26.4% |
Reasoning GPT-6 Sol leads
GLM-5.2: 42.3 (#52), GPT-6 Sol: 74.0 (#9)
| Benchmark | GLM-5.2 | GPT-6 Sol |
|---|---|---|
| ARC-AGI-2 | 22.8% | 89.6% |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 74.3% | 90.1% |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 77% | 95.5% |
| CritPt | 20.9% | 30.9% |
| EBR-Bench | 9.5% | 53.3% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1480 | 1418 |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 19% | 56% |
| DTBench | 93.6% | 97.3% |
| LMCA | 45.8% | 59.1% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 151.78 | 162.72 |
| SimpleBench | 58.8% | — |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 62.6% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | 21% | — |
| Surface Evolver Bench | 55.6% | — |
Math GPT-6 Sol leads
GLM-5.2: 55.7 (#43), GPT-6 Sol: 87.2 (#7)
| Benchmark | GLM-5.2 | GPT-6 Sol |
|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 59.2% | 89.8% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 29.3% | 90% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 86.4% | 100% |
| ProofBench | 35% | 83% |
| LMArena Math | 1482 | 1402 |
| MathArena Final-Answer Competitions | 67.6% | — |
Knowledge GPT-6 Sol leads
GLM-5.2: 57.1 (#40), GPT-6 Sol: 64.8 (#15)
| Benchmark | GLM-5.2 | GPT-6 Sol |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 91.9% | 94.3% |
| SimpleQA Verified | 34.2% | 60.7% |
| LMArena Expert | 1486 | 1439 |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | — | 6.5% |
Multimodal Not comparable
GLM-5.2: —, GPT-6 Sol: 47.6 (#10)
| Benchmark | GLM-5.2 | GPT-6 Sol |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | — | 1245 |
| Blueprint-Bench 2 | — | 36.9% |
| Furniture Assembly | — | 58.3% |
Multilingual GLM-5.2 leads
GLM-5.2: 55.8 (#26), GPT-6 Sol: 50.5 (#118)
| Benchmark | GLM-5.2 | GPT-6 Sol |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1459 | 1385 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1519 | 1405 |
| LMArena French | 1479 | 1410 |
| LMArena German | 1468 | 1390 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1451 | 1385 |
| LMArena Korean | 1445 | 1341 |
| LMArena Russian | 1466 | 1401 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1477 | 1384 |
Instruction Following GLM-5.2 leads
GLM-5.2: 76.9 (#34), GPT-6 Sol: 74.5 (#94)
| Benchmark | GLM-5.2 | GPT-6 Sol |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1465 | 1412 |
Long Context GLM-5.2 leads
GLM-5.2: 45.3 (#43), GPT-6 Sol: 43.1 (#108)
| Benchmark | GLM-5.2 | GPT-6 Sol |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1479 | 1411 |
Writing & Preference GPT-6 Sol leads
GLM-5.2: 70.4 (#21), GPT-6 Sol: 71.9 (#18)
| Benchmark | GLM-5.2 | GPT-6 Sol |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1470 | 1395 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1462 | 1378 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1757 | 2125 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1469 | 1412 |
| EQ-Bench 4 | 1222 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is GLM-5.2 better than GPT-6 Sol?
GPT-6 Sol is the stronger model overall, scoring 61.8 to 51.1 on the Noometry Index. GLM-5.2 costs 1.9× less per token, which makes it the better buy when GPT-6 Sol's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, GLM-5.2 or GPT-6 Sol?
GLM-5.2 is cheaper. It lists at $1.40 per million input tokens and $4.40 per million output tokens; GPT-6 Sol lists at $2 and $10.
Is GLM-5.2 or GPT-6 Sol better for coding?
GPT-6 Sol scores higher on coding benchmarks: 60.1 versus 51.3 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
GPT-6 Sol does, with 1.05M tokens against 1M.
How many benchmarks do GLM-5.2 and GPT-6 Sol share?
40 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-5.2 has 51 scored results on Noometry and GPT-6 Sol has 45.