Model comparison

GLM-5.2 vs Muse Glimmer

GLM-5.2 is the stronger model overall, scoring 51.1 to 41.7 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 15 shared benchmarks.

GLM-5.2 Z.ai (Zhipu)

51.1

Rank #44 Confirmed

Muse Glimmer Meta

41.7

Rank #131 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 15 benchmarks with published results for both. GLM-5.2 scores higher in 8 categories and Muse Glimmer in 0 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in knowledge, where GLM-5.2 leads 57.1 to 38.5.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is CritPt: 20.9% for GLM-5.2 and 2.6% for Muse Glimmer.

Side by side

GLM-5.2 and Muse Glimmer specifications
GLM-5.2Muse Glimmer
ProviderZ.ai (Zhipu)Meta
Noometry Index51.141.7
Released2026-06-132026-08-10
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window1M—
Max output131K—
Input $ / M tokens$1.40—
Output $ / M tokens$4.40—
Results tracked5115

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), Muse Glimmer: 40.4 (#142)

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5.2Muse Glimmer
LMArena WebDev16031355
SciCode50.5%44.9%
LMArena Coding14851416
SWE-bench Verified78.7%—
DeepSWE43.8%—
FrontierCode24.5%—
WeirdML70.1%—
ALE-Bench1,047—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

GLM-5.2: 32.4 (#63), Muse Glimmer: —

Agentic & Tool Use benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5.2Muse Glimmer
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), Muse Glimmer: 25.7 (#144)

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5.2Muse Glimmer
CritPt20.9%2.6%
LMArena Hard Prompts14801396
ARC-AGI-222.8%—
SimpleBench58.8%—
Kagi LLM Benchmark62.6%—
NYT Connections (extended)74.3%—
ARC-AGI-177%—
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), Muse Glimmer: 38.8 (#125)

Math benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5.2Muse Glimmer
LMArena Math14821417
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)59.2%—
FrontierMath Tier 429.3%—
MathArena Final-Answer Competitions67.6%—
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202586.4%—
ProofBench35%—

Knowledge GLM-5.2 leads

GLM-5.2: 57.1 (#40), Muse Glimmer: 38.5 (#143)

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5.2Muse Glimmer
LMArena Expert14861386
GPQA Diamond91.9%—
SimpleQA Verified34.2%—

Multilingual GLM-5.2 leads

GLM-5.2: 55.8 (#26), Muse Glimmer: 50.5 (#122)

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5.2Muse Glimmer
LMArena Non-English14591384
LMArena Chinese15191412
LMArena Russian14661390
LMArena French1479—
LMArena German1468—
LMArena Japanese1451—
LMArena Korean1445—
LMArena Spanish1477—

Instruction Following GLM-5.2 leads

GLM-5.2: 76.9 (#34), Muse Glimmer: 72.6 (#135)

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5.2Muse Glimmer
LMArena Instruction Following14651375

Long Context GLM-5.2 leads

GLM-5.2: 45.3 (#43), Muse Glimmer: 42.1 (#129)

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5.2Muse Glimmer
LMArena Longer Query14791382

Writing & Preference GLM-5.2 leads

GLM-5.2: 70.4 (#21), Muse Glimmer: 57.5 (#126)

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5.2Muse Glimmer
LMArena Text14701389
LMArena Creative Writing14621339
LMArena Multi-Turn14691399
EQ-Bench Creative Writing1757—
EQ-Bench 41222—

Frequently asked questions

Is GLM-5.2 better than Muse Glimmer?

GLM-5.2 is the stronger model overall, scoring 51.1 to 41.7 on the Noometry Index.

Is GLM-5.2 or Muse Glimmer better for coding?

GLM-5.2 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 51.3 versus 40.4 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do GLM-5.2 and Muse Glimmer share?

15 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-5.2 has 51 scored results on Noometry and Muse Glimmer has 15.

Related comparisons

Go deeper