Model comparison

GLM-5.2 vs Hunyuan T1 20250711

GLM-5.2 is the stronger model overall, scoring 50.9 to 41.8 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 13 shared benchmarks.

GLM-5.2 Z.ai (Zhipu)

50.9

Rank #38 Confirmed

Hunyuan T1 20250711 Tencent

41.8

Rank #114 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 13 benchmarks with published results for both. GLM-5.2 scores higher in 8 categories and Hunyuan T1 20250711 in 0 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in math, where GLM-5.2 leads 55.4 to 36.0.
  • GLM-5.2 has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

GLM-5.2 and Hunyuan T1 20250711 specifications
GLM-5.2Hunyuan T1 20250711
ProviderZ.ai (Zhipu)Tencent
Noometry Index50.941.8
Released2026-06-13—
WeightsOpenProprietary
Context window1M—
Max output131K—
Input $ / M tokens$1.40—
Output $ / M tokens$4.40—
Results tracked5013

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

Category by category

Coding GLM-5.2 leads

GLM-5.2: 50.9 (#37), Hunyuan T1 20250711: 40.2 (#129)

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5.2Hunyuan T1 20250711
LMArena Coding14841389
SWE-bench Verified78.7%—
DeepSWE43.8%—
FrontierCode24.5%—
LMArena WebDev1604—
SciCode50.5%—
WeirdML70.1%—
ALE-Bench1,047—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

GLM-5.2: 31.6 (#63), Hunyuan T1 20250711: —

Agentic & Tool Use benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5.2Hunyuan T1 20250711
τ²-bench Banking37.1%—
PostTrainBench31.7%—
GBAEval0%—
Vending-Bench 28,314—

Reasoning GLM-5.2 leads

GLM-5.2: 42.1 (#46), Hunyuan T1 20250711: 27.3 (#106)

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5.2Hunyuan T1 20250711
LMArena Hard Prompts14801399
ARC-AGI-222.8%—
SimpleBench58.8%—
Kagi LLM Benchmark62.6%—
NYT Connections (extended)74.3%—
ARC-AGI-177%—
CritPt20.9%—
Chess Puzzles21%—
EBR-Bench9.5%—
Mystery Game Puzzles19%—
DTBench93.6%—
LMCA45.8%—
Surface Evolver Bench55.6%—
Epoch Capabilities Index151.76—

Math GLM-5.2 leads

GLM-5.2: 55.4 (#35), Hunyuan T1 20250711: 36.0 (#132)

Math benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5.2Hunyuan T1 20250711
LMArena Math14821414
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)59.2%—
FrontierMath Tier 429.3%—
MathArena Final-Answer Competitions67.6%—
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202586.4%—
ProofBench35%—

Knowledge GLM-5.2 leads

GLM-5.2: 57.1 (#36), Hunyuan T1 20250711: 38.1 (#139)

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5.2Hunyuan T1 20250711
LMArena Expert14841395
GPQA Diamond91.9%—
SimpleQA Verified34.2%—

Multilingual GLM-5.2 leads

GLM-5.2: 56.0 (#25), Hunyuan T1 20250711: 51.4 (#107)

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5.2Hunyuan T1 20250711
LMArena Non-English14591395
LMArena Chinese15181424
LMArena Korean14451403
LMArena Russian14671384
LMArena French1476—
LMArena German1470—
LMArena Japanese1451—
LMArena Spanish1477—

Instruction Following GLM-5.2 leads

GLM-5.2: 77.1 (#32), Hunyuan T1 20250711: 72.8 (#130)

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5.2Hunyuan T1 20250711
LMArena Instruction Following14651375

Long Context GLM-5.2 leads

GLM-5.2: 45.3 (#43), Hunyuan T1 20250711: 42.2 (#123)

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5.2Hunyuan T1 20250711
LMArena Longer Query14791384

Writing & Preference GLM-5.2 leads

GLM-5.2: 70.7 (#20), Hunyuan T1 20250711: 59.7 (#105)

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5.2Hunyuan T1 20250711
LMArena Text14701401
LMArena Creative Writing14651391
LMArena Multi-Turn14681393
EQ-Bench Creative Writing1757—
EQ-Bench 41222—

Frequently asked questions

Is GLM-5.2 better than Hunyuan T1 20250711?

GLM-5.2 is the stronger model overall, scoring 50.9 to 41.8 on the Noometry Index.

Is GLM-5.2 or Hunyuan T1 20250711 better for coding?

GLM-5.2 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 50.9 versus 40.2 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do GLM-5.2 and Hunyuan T1 20250711 share?

13 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-5.2 has 50 scored results on Noometry and Hunyuan T1 20250711 has 13.

Related comparisons

Go deeper