Model comparison
GLM-5.2 vs Mercury 2
GLM-5.2 is the stronger model overall, scoring 51.1 to 39.1 on the Noometry Index. Mercury 2 costs 5.7× less per token, which makes it the better buy when GLM-5.2's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 16 shared benchmarks.
Summary
- They share 16 benchmarks with published results for both. GLM-5.2 scores higher in 7 categories and Mercury 2 in 0 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in knowledge, where GLM-5.2 leads 57.1 to 36.2.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is WeirdML: 70.1% for GLM-5.2 and 43.2% for Mercury 2.
- Mercury 2 is cheaper at $0.25 / $0.75 per million input/output tokens, against $1.40 / $4.40 for GLM-5.2.
- GLM-5.2 accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 128K.
- GLM-5.2 has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| GLM-5.2 | Mercury 2 | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Z.ai (Zhipu) | Inception |
| Noometry Index | 51.1 | 39.1 |
| Released | 2026-06-13 | 2026-02-20 |
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |
| Context window | 1M | 128K |
| Max output | 131K | 50K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $1.40 | $0.25 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $4.40 | $0.75 |
| Results tracked | 51 | 17 |
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), Mercury 2: 33.5 (#255)
| Benchmark | GLM-5.2 | Mercury 2 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena WebDev | 1603 | 1171 |
| SciCode | 50.5% | 38.7% |
| WeirdML | 70.1% | 43.2% |
| LMArena Coding | 1485 | 1391 |
| ALE-Bench | 1,047 | 785.58 |
| SWE-bench Verified | 78.7% | — |
| DeepSWE | 43.8% | — |
| FrontierCode | 24.5% | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
GLM-5.2: 32.4 (#63), Mercury 2: —
| Benchmark | GLM-5.2 | Mercury 2 |
|---|---|---|
| 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), Mercury 2: 23.8 (#170)
| Benchmark | GLM-5.2 | Mercury 2 |
|---|---|---|
| CritPt | 20.9% | 0.8% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1480 | 1362 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 22.8% | — |
| SimpleBench | 58.8% | — |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 62.6% | — |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 74.3% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 77% | — |
| 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 Not comparable
GLM-5.2: 55.7 (#43), Mercury 2: —
| Benchmark | GLM-5.2 | Mercury 2 |
|---|---|---|
| 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% | — |
| LMArena Math | 1482 | — |
Knowledge GLM-5.2 leads
GLM-5.2: 57.1 (#40), Mercury 2: 36.2 (#172)
| Benchmark | GLM-5.2 | Mercury 2 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1486 | 1358 |
| GPQA Diamond | 91.9% | — |
| SimpleQA Verified | 34.2% | — |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | — | 12.3% |
Multilingual GLM-5.2 leads
GLM-5.2: 55.8 (#26), Mercury 2: 46.6 (#157)
| Benchmark | GLM-5.2 | Mercury 2 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1459 | 1331 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1519 | 1417 |
| LMArena Russian | 1466 | 1304 |
| LMArena French | 1479 | — |
| LMArena German | 1468 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1451 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1445 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1477 | — |
Instruction Following GLM-5.2 leads
GLM-5.2: 76.9 (#34), Mercury 2: 70.2 (#165)
| Benchmark | GLM-5.2 | Mercury 2 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1465 | 1329 |
Long Context GLM-5.2 leads
GLM-5.2: 45.3 (#43), Mercury 2: 40.5 (#154)
| Benchmark | GLM-5.2 | Mercury 2 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1479 | 1330 |
Writing & Preference GLM-5.2 leads
GLM-5.2: 70.4 (#21), Mercury 2: 53.8 (#155)
| Benchmark | GLM-5.2 | Mercury 2 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1470 | 1355 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1462 | 1289 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1469 | 1358 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1757 | — |
| EQ-Bench 4 | 1222 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is GLM-5.2 better than Mercury 2?
GLM-5.2 is the stronger model overall, scoring 51.1 to 39.1 on the Noometry Index. Mercury 2 costs 5.7× 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 Mercury 2?
Mercury 2 is cheaper. It lists at $0.25 per million input tokens and $0.75 per million output tokens; GLM-5.2 lists at $1.40 and $4.40.
Is GLM-5.2 or Mercury 2 better for coding?
GLM-5.2 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 51.3 versus 33.5 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 Mercury 2 share?
16 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-5.2 has 51 scored results on Noometry and Mercury 2 has 17.