Model comparison
GLM-5.2 vs Llama 4 Scout
GLM-5.2 is the stronger model overall, scoring 51.1 to 27.7 on the Noometry Index. Llama 4 Scout costs 14× less per token, which makes it the better buy when GLM-5.2's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 28 shared benchmarks.
MetaSummary
- They share 28 benchmarks with published results for both. GLM-5.2 scores higher in 9 categories and Llama 4 Scout in 0 categories; 9 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where GLM-5.2 leads 55.7 to 19.6.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 86.4% for GLM-5.2 and 7.8% for Llama 4 Scout.
- Llama 4 Scout is cheaper at $0.10 / $0.30 per million input/output tokens, against $1.40 / $4.40 for GLM-5.2.
- GLM-5.2 accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 128K.
Side by side
| GLM-5.2 | Llama 4 Scout | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Z.ai (Zhipu) | Meta |
| Noometry Index | 51.1 | 27.7 |
| Released | 2026-06-13 | 2025-04-05 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | 1M | 128K |
| Max output | 131K | 4K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $1.40 | $0.10 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $4.40 | $0.30 |
| Results tracked | 51 | 43 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding GLM-5.2 leads
GLM-5.2: 51.3 (#41), Llama 4 Scout: 20.2 (#339)
| Benchmark | GLM-5.2 | Llama 4 Scout |
|---|---|---|
| SciCode | 50.5% | 17% |
| LMArena Coding | 1485 | 1286 |
| SWE-bench Verified | 78.7% | — |
| DeepSWE | 43.8% | — |
| FrontierCode | 24.5% | — |
| SWE-bench Verified (bash only) | — | 9.1% |
| LMArena WebDev | 1603 | — |
| WeirdML | 70.1% | — |
| BigCodeBench Complete | — | 43.1% |
| ALE-Bench | 1,047 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use GLM-5.2 leads
GLM-5.2: 32.4 (#63), Llama 4 Scout: 24.6 (#119)
| Benchmark | GLM-5.2 | Llama 4 Scout |
|---|---|---|
| APEX-Agents | 45.2% | — |
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | — | 28.1% |
| τ²-bench Banking | 37.1% | — |
| PostTrainBench | 31.7% | — |
| GBAEval | 0% | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | 8,314 | — |
Reasoning GLM-5.2 leads
GLM-5.2: 42.3 (#52), Llama 4 Scout: 9.1 (#345)
| Benchmark | GLM-5.2 | Llama 4 Scout |
|---|---|---|
| ARC-AGI-2 | 22.8% | 0% |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 62.6% | 36.9% |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 77% | 0.5% |
| CritPt | 20.9% | 0% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1480 | 1266 |
| DTBench | 93.6% | 57.9% |
| LMCA | 45.8% | 12% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 151.78 | 129.64 |
| SimpleBench | 58.8% | — |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 74.3% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | 21% | — |
| EBR-Bench | 9.5% | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 19% | — |
| Surface Evolver Bench | 55.6% | — |
| ForecastBench | — | 57.5 |
Math GLM-5.2 leads
GLM-5.2: 55.7 (#43), Llama 4 Scout: 19.6 (#286)
| Benchmark | GLM-5.2 | Llama 4 Scout |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 86.4% | 7.8% |
| LMArena Math | 1482 | 1287 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 59.2% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 29.3% | — |
| MathArena Final-Answer Competitions | 67.6% | — |
| ProofBench | 35% | — |
| Omni-MATH | — | 37.3% |
| MATH Level 5 | — | 62.3% |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | — | 0% |
Knowledge GLM-5.2 leads
GLM-5.2: 57.1 (#40), Llama 4 Scout: 31.9 (#217)
| Benchmark | GLM-5.2 | Llama 4 Scout |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 91.9% | 51.8% |
| LMArena Expert | 1486 | 1235 |
| SimpleQA Verified | 34.2% | — |
| MMLU-Pro | — | 74.2% |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | — | 7.7% |
| GPQA (HELM) | — | 50.7% |
Multimodal Not comparable
GLM-5.2: —, Llama 4 Scout: 32.2 (#102)
| Benchmark | GLM-5.2 | Llama 4 Scout |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | — | 1118 |
| SpatialViz-Bench | — | 34.2% |
Multilingual GLM-5.2 leads
GLM-5.2: 55.8 (#26), Llama 4 Scout: 41.0 (#212)
| Benchmark | GLM-5.2 | Llama 4 Scout |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1459 | 1252 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1519 | 1255 |
| LMArena French | 1479 | 1282 |
| LMArena German | 1468 | 1272 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1451 | 1206 |
| LMArena Korean | 1445 | 1207 |
| LMArena Russian | 1466 | 1263 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1477 | 1278 |
Instruction Following GLM-5.2 leads
GLM-5.2: 76.9 (#34), Llama 4 Scout: 65.8 (#217)
| Benchmark | GLM-5.2 | Llama 4 Scout |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1465 | 1248 |
| IFEval | — | 81.8% |
Long Context GLM-5.2 leads
GLM-5.2: 45.3 (#43), Llama 4 Scout: 27.5 (#294)
| Benchmark | GLM-5.2 | Llama 4 Scout |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1479 | 1265 |
| Fiction.LiveBench | — | 36% |
Writing & Preference GLM-5.2 leads
GLM-5.2: 70.4 (#21), Llama 4 Scout: 37.0 (#261)
| Benchmark | GLM-5.2 | Llama 4 Scout |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1470 | 1279 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1462 | 1249 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1757 | 783 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1469 | 1280 |
| WildBench | — | 78% |
| EQ-Bench 4 | 1222 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is GLM-5.2 better than Llama 4 Scout?
GLM-5.2 is the stronger model overall, scoring 51.1 to 27.7 on the Noometry Index. Llama 4 Scout costs 14× less per token, which makes it the better buy when GLM-5.2's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, GLM-5.2 or Llama 4 Scout?
Llama 4 Scout is cheaper. It lists at $0.10 per million input tokens and $0.30 per million output tokens; GLM-5.2 lists at $1.40 and $4.40.
Is GLM-5.2 or Llama 4 Scout better for coding?
GLM-5.2 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 51.3 versus 20.2 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
GLM-5.2 does, with 1M tokens against 128K.
How many benchmarks do GLM-5.2 and Llama 4 Scout share?
28 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-5.2 has 51 scored results on Noometry and Llama 4 Scout has 43.