Model comparison

GLM-5.2 vs Mistral

GLM-5.2 is the stronger model overall, scoring 51.1 to 29.9 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 17 shared benchmarks.

GLM-5.2 Z.ai (Zhipu)

51.1

Rank #44 Confirmed

Mistral Mistral AI

29.9

Rank #303 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 17 benchmarks with published results for both. GLM-5.2 scores higher in 8 categories and Mistral in 0 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in knowledge, where GLM-5.2 leads 57.1 to 16.6.
  • GLM-5.2 has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

GLM-5.2 and Mistral specifications
GLM-5.2Mistral
ProviderZ.ai (Zhipu)Mistral AI
Noometry Index51.129.9
Released2026-06-13—
WeightsOpenProprietary
Context window1M—
Max output131K—
Input $ / M tokens$1.40—
Output $ / M tokens$4.40—
Results tracked5122

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), Mistral: 33.8 (#250)

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5.2Mistral
LMArena Coding14851162
SWE-bench Verified78.7%—
DeepSWE43.8%—
FrontierCode24.5%—
LMArena WebDev1603—
SciCode50.5%—
WeirdML70.1%—
ALE-Bench1,047—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

GLM-5.2: 32.4 (#63), Mistral: —

Agentic & Tool Use benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5.2Mistral
APEX-Agents45.2%—
τ²-bench Banking37.1%—
PostTrainBench31.7%—
GBAEval0%—
Vending-Bench 28,314—

Reasoning GLM-5.2 leads

GLM-5.2: 42.3 (#52), Mistral: 22.2 (#200)

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5.2Mistral
LMArena Hard Prompts14801149
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 Index151.78—

Math GLM-5.2 leads

GLM-5.2: 55.7 (#43), Mistral: 22.3 (#278)

Math benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5.2Mistral
LMArena Math14821180
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)59.2%—
FrontierMath Tier 429.3%—
MathArena Final-Answer Competitions67.6%—
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202586.4%—
ProofBench35%—
Omni-MATH—7.2%

Knowledge GLM-5.2 leads

GLM-5.2: 57.1 (#40), Mistral: 16.6 (#288)

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5.2Mistral
LMArena Expert14861125
GPQA Diamond91.9%—
SimpleQA Verified34.2%—
MMLU-Pro—27.7%
GPQA (HELM)—30.3%

Multilingual GLM-5.2 leads

GLM-5.2: 55.8 (#26), Mistral: 32.8 (#254)

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5.2Mistral
LMArena Non-English14591129
LMArena Chinese15191109
LMArena French14791180
LMArena German14681155
LMArena Japanese14511013
LMArena Korean14451032
LMArena Russian14661168
LMArena Spanish14771143

Instruction Following GLM-5.2 leads

GLM-5.2: 76.9 (#34), Mistral: 52.6 (#288)

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5.2Mistral
LMArena Instruction Following14651152
IFEval—56.8%

Long Context GLM-5.2 leads

GLM-5.2: 45.3 (#43), Mistral: 35.0 (#245)

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5.2Mistral
LMArena Longer Query14791153

Writing & Preference GLM-5.2 leads

GLM-5.2: 70.4 (#21), Mistral: 37.0 (#260)

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5.2Mistral
LMArena Text14701165
LMArena Creative Writing14621158
LMArena Multi-Turn14691147
EQ-Bench Creative Writing1757—
WildBench—66%
EQ-Bench 41222—

Frequently asked questions

Is GLM-5.2 better than Mistral?

GLM-5.2 is the stronger model overall, scoring 51.1 to 29.9 on the Noometry Index.

Is GLM-5.2 or Mistral better for coding?

GLM-5.2 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 51.3 versus 33.8 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do GLM-5.2 and Mistral share?

17 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-5.2 has 51 scored results on Noometry and Mistral has 22.

Related comparisons

Go deeper