Model comparison

GLM-5.2 vs Mistral Medium 3.5

GLM-5.2 is the stronger model overall, scoring 51.1 to 40.2 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified October 10, 2026. 21 shared benchmarks.

GLM-5.2 Z.ai (Zhipu)

51.1

Rank #44 Confirmed

Mistral Medium 3.5

Mistral AI

40.2

Rank #152 Confirmed

Summary

They share 21 benchmarks with published results for both. GLM-5.2 scores higher in 8 categories and Mistral Medium 3.5 in 0 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
The widest gap is in reasoning, where GLM-5.2 leads 42.3 to 17.3.
The biggest single-benchmark swing is NYT Connections (extended): 74.3% for GLM-5.2 and 12.9% for Mistral Medium 3.5.
GLM-5.2 is cheaper at $1.40 / $4.40 per million input/output tokens, against $1.50 / $7.50 for Mistral Medium 3.5.
GLM-5.2 accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 262K.

Side by side

GLM-5.2 and Mistral Medium 3.5 specifications
	GLM-5.2	Mistral Medium 3.5
Provider	Z.ai (Zhipu)	Mistral AI
Noometry Index	51.1	40.2
Released	2026-06-13	—
Weights	Open	Open
Context window	1M	262K
Max output	131K	210K
Input $ / M tokens	$1.40	$1.50
Output $ / M tokens	$4.40	$7.50
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), Mistral Medium 3.5: 36.0 (#213)

Coding benchmarks
Benchmark	GLM-5.2	Mistral Medium 3.5
LMArena WebDev	1603	1264
LMArena Coding	1485	1461
SWE-bench Verified	78.7%	—
DeepSWE	43.8%	—
FrontierCode	24.5%	—
SciCode	50.5%	—
WeirdML	70.1%	—
ALE-Bench	1,047	—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

GLM-5.2: 32.4 (#63), Mistral Medium 3.5: —

Agentic & Tool Use benchmarks
Benchmark	GLM-5.2	Mistral Medium 3.5
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), Mistral Medium 3.5: 17.3 (#295)

Reasoning benchmarks
Benchmark	GLM-5.2	Mistral Medium 3.5
Kagi LLM Benchmark	62.6%	41.4%
NYT Connections (extended)	74.3%	12.9%
LMArena Hard Prompts	1480	1436
Epoch Capabilities Index	151.78	141.35
ARC-AGI-2	22.8%	—
SimpleBench	58.8%	—
ARC-AGI-1	77%	—
CritPt	20.9%	—
Chess Puzzles	21%	—
EBR-Bench	9.5%	—
Mystery Game Puzzles	19%	—
DTBench	93.6%	—
LMCA	45.8%	—
Surface Evolver Bench	55.6%	—

Math GLM-5.2 leads

GLM-5.2: 55.7 (#43), Mistral Medium 3.5: 39.1 (#113)

Math benchmarks
Benchmark	GLM-5.2	Mistral Medium 3.5
LMArena Math	1482	1431
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), Mistral Medium 3.5: 40.0 (#126)

Knowledge benchmarks
Benchmark	GLM-5.2	Mistral Medium 3.5
LMArena Expert	1486	1432
GPQA Diamond	91.9%	—
SimpleQA Verified	34.2%	—

Multimodal Not comparable

GLM-5.2: —, Mistral Medium 3.5: 38.3 (#65)

Multimodal benchmarks
Benchmark	GLM-5.2	Mistral Medium 3.5
LMArena Vision	—	1223

Multilingual GLM-5.2 leads

GLM-5.2: 55.8 (#26), Mistral Medium 3.5: 51.9 (#100)

Multilingual benchmarks
Benchmark	GLM-5.2	Mistral Medium 3.5
LMArena Non-English	1459	1404
LMArena Chinese	1519	1442
LMArena French	1479	1448
LMArena German	1468	1451
LMArena Korean	1445	1385
LMArena Russian	1466	1395
LMArena Spanish	1477	1409
LMArena Japanese	1451	—

Instruction Following GLM-5.2 leads

GLM-5.2: 76.9 (#34), Mistral Medium 3.5: 74.6 (#90)

Instruction Following benchmarks
Benchmark	GLM-5.2	Mistral Medium 3.5
LMArena Instruction Following	1465	1415

Long Context GLM-5.2 leads

GLM-5.2: 45.3 (#43), Mistral Medium 3.5: 43.2 (#103)

Long Context benchmarks
Benchmark	GLM-5.2	Mistral Medium 3.5
LMArena Longer Query	1479	1415

Writing & Preference GLM-5.2 leads

GLM-5.2: 70.4 (#21), Mistral Medium 3.5: 58.5 (#117)

Writing & Preference benchmarks
Benchmark	GLM-5.2	Mistral Medium 3.5
LMArena Text	1470	1421
LMArena Creative Writing	1462	1374
EQ-Bench 4	1222	993
LMArena Multi-Turn	1469	1423
EQ-Bench Creative Writing	1757	—

Frequently asked questions

Is GLM-5.2 better than Mistral Medium 3.5?

GLM-5.2 is the stronger model overall, scoring 51.1 to 40.2 on the Noometry Index.

Which is cheaper, GLM-5.2 or Mistral Medium 3.5?

GLM-5.2 is cheaper. It lists at $1.40 per million input tokens and $4.40 per million output tokens; Mistral Medium 3.5 lists at $1.50 and $7.50.

Is GLM-5.2 or Mistral Medium 3.5 better for coding?

GLM-5.2 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 51.3 versus 36.0 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 Mistral Medium 3.5 share?

21 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-5.2 has 51 scored results on Noometry and Mistral Medium 3.5 has 22.