Model comparison
GLM-5.2 vs Magistral Medium
GLM-5.2 is the stronger model overall, scoring 51.1 to 35.2 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 22 shared benchmarks.
Mistral AISummary
- They share 22 benchmarks with published results for both. GLM-5.2 scores higher in 8 categories and Magistral Medium in 0 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in reasoning, where GLM-5.2 leads 42.3 to 8.6.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is ARC-AGI-1: 77% for GLM-5.2 and 6.1% for Magistral Medium.
- GLM-5.2 is cheaper at $1.40 / $4.40 per million input/output tokens, against $2 / $5 for Magistral Medium.
- GLM-5.2 accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 262K.
Side by side
| GLM-5.2 | Magistral Medium | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Z.ai (Zhipu) | Mistral AI |
| Noometry Index | 51.1 | 35.2 |
| Released | 2026-06-13 | 2025-03-17 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | 1M | 262K |
| Max output | 131K | 16K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $1.40 | $2 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $4.40 | $5 |
| Results tracked | 51 | 22 |
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), Magistral Medium: 39.1 (#161)
| Benchmark | GLM-5.2 | Magistral Medium |
|---|---|---|
| SciCode | 50.5% | 39.2% |
| LMArena Coding | 1485 | 1319 |
| SWE-bench Verified | 78.7% | — |
| DeepSWE | 43.8% | — |
| FrontierCode | 24.5% | — |
| LMArena WebDev | 1603 | — |
| WeirdML | 70.1% | — |
| ALE-Bench | 1,047 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
GLM-5.2: 32.4 (#63), Magistral Medium: —
| Benchmark | GLM-5.2 | Magistral Medium |
|---|---|---|
| APEX-Agents | 45.2% | — |
| 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), Magistral Medium: 8.6 (#348)
| Benchmark | GLM-5.2 | Magistral Medium |
|---|---|---|
| ARC-AGI-2 | 22.8% | 0% |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 62.6% | 16.2% |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 77% | 6.1% |
| CritPt | 20.9% | 0.3% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1480 | 1267 |
| SimpleBench | 58.8% | — |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 74.3% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | 21% | — |
| EBR-Bench | 9.5% | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 19% | — |
| DTBench | 93.6% | — |
| LMCA | 45.8% | — |
| Surface Evolver Bench | 55.6% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 151.78 | — |
Math GLM-5.2 leads
GLM-5.2: 55.7 (#43), Magistral Medium: 35.1 (#189)
| Benchmark | GLM-5.2 | Magistral Medium |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1482 | 1250 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 59.2% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 29.3% | — |
| MathArena Final-Answer Competitions | 67.6% | — |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 86.4% | — |
| ProofBench | 35% | — |
Knowledge GLM-5.2 leads
GLM-5.2: 57.1 (#40), Magistral Medium: 33.5 (#202)
| Benchmark | GLM-5.2 | Magistral Medium |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1486 | 1223 |
| GPQA Diamond | 91.9% | — |
| SimpleQA Verified | 34.2% | — |
Multilingual GLM-5.2 leads
GLM-5.2: 55.8 (#26), Magistral Medium: 39.6 (#224)
| Benchmark | GLM-5.2 | Magistral Medium |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1459 | 1232 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1519 | 1227 |
| LMArena French | 1479 | 1267 |
| LMArena German | 1468 | 1248 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1451 | 1175 |
| LMArena Korean | 1445 | 1125 |
| LMArena Russian | 1466 | 1224 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1477 | 1271 |
Instruction Following GLM-5.2 leads
GLM-5.2: 76.9 (#34), Magistral Medium: 66.0 (#211)
| Benchmark | GLM-5.2 | Magistral Medium |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1465 | 1254 |
Long Context GLM-5.2 leads
GLM-5.2: 45.3 (#43), Magistral Medium: 39.3 (#183)
| Benchmark | GLM-5.2 | Magistral Medium |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1479 | 1295 |
Writing & Preference GLM-5.2 leads
GLM-5.2: 70.4 (#21), Magistral Medium: 46.3 (#219)
| Benchmark | GLM-5.2 | Magistral Medium |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1470 | 1255 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1462 | 1245 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1469 | 1275 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1757 | — |
| EQ-Bench 4 | 1222 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is GLM-5.2 better than Magistral Medium?
GLM-5.2 is the stronger model overall, scoring 51.1 to 35.2 on the Noometry Index.
Which is cheaper, GLM-5.2 or Magistral Medium?
GLM-5.2 is cheaper. It lists at $1.40 per million input tokens and $4.40 per million output tokens; Magistral Medium lists at $2 and $5.
Is GLM-5.2 or Magistral Medium better for coding?
GLM-5.2 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 51.3 versus 39.1 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
GLM-5.2 does, with 1M tokens against 262K.
How many benchmarks do GLM-5.2 and Magistral Medium share?
22 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-5.2 has 51 scored results on Noometry and Magistral Medium has 22.