Model comparison
GLM-5.2 vs Nemotron 3.5 Lightning
GLM-5.2 is the stronger model overall, scoring 51.1 to 40.0 on the Noometry Index. Nemotron 3.5 Lightning costs 25× less per token, which makes it the better buy when GLM-5.2's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 18 shared benchmarks.
NVIDIASummary
- They share 18 benchmarks with published results for both. GLM-5.2 scores higher in 8 categories and Nemotron 3.5 Lightning in 0 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in writing & preference, where GLM-5.2 leads 70.4 to 48.5.
- Nemotron 3.5 Lightning is cheaper at $0.05 / $0.20 per million input/output tokens, against $1.40 / $4.40 for GLM-5.2.
- GLM-5.2 accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 262K.
Side by side
| GLM-5.2 | Nemotron 3.5 Lightning | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Z.ai (Zhipu) | NVIDIA |
| Noometry Index | 51.1 | 40.0 |
| Released | 2026-06-13 | 2026-08-11 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | 1M | 262K |
| Max output | 131K | 262K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $1.40 | $0.05 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $4.40 | $0.20 |
| Results tracked | 51 | 18 |
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), Nemotron 3.5 Lightning: 40.4 (#141)
| Benchmark | GLM-5.2 | Nemotron 3.5 Lightning |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1485 | 1375 |
| SWE-bench Verified | 78.7% | — |
| DeepSWE | 43.8% | — |
| FrontierCode | 24.5% | — |
| LMArena WebDev | 1603 | — |
| SciCode | 50.5% | — |
| WeirdML | 70.1% | — |
| ALE-Bench | 1,047 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
GLM-5.2: 32.4 (#63), Nemotron 3.5 Lightning: —
| Benchmark | GLM-5.2 | Nemotron 3.5 Lightning |
|---|---|---|
| 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), Nemotron 3.5 Lightning: 26.8 (#127)
| Benchmark | GLM-5.2 | Nemotron 3.5 Lightning |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1480 | 1337 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 22.8% | — |
| SimpleBench | 58.8% | — |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 62.6% | — |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 74.3% | — |
| 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% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 151.78 | — |
Math GLM-5.2 leads
GLM-5.2: 55.7 (#43), Nemotron 3.5 Lightning: 37.5 (#155)
| Benchmark | GLM-5.2 | Nemotron 3.5 Lightning |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1482 | 1359 |
| 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), Nemotron 3.5 Lightning: 37.5 (#154)
| Benchmark | GLM-5.2 | Nemotron 3.5 Lightning |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1486 | 1356 |
| GPQA Diamond | 91.9% | — |
| SimpleQA Verified | 34.2% | — |
Multilingual GLM-5.2 leads
GLM-5.2: 55.8 (#26), Nemotron 3.5 Lightning: 44.0 (#180)
| Benchmark | GLM-5.2 | Nemotron 3.5 Lightning |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1459 | 1295 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1519 | 1359 |
| LMArena French | 1479 | 1366 |
| LMArena German | 1468 | 1282 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1451 | 1206 |
| LMArena Korean | 1445 | 1238 |
| LMArena Russian | 1466 | 1253 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1477 | 1345 |
Instruction Following GLM-5.2 leads
GLM-5.2: 76.9 (#34), Nemotron 3.5 Lightning: 69.6 (#170)
| Benchmark | GLM-5.2 | Nemotron 3.5 Lightning |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1465 | 1318 |
Long Context GLM-5.2 leads
GLM-5.2: 45.3 (#43), Nemotron 3.5 Lightning: 39.9 (#165)
| Benchmark | GLM-5.2 | Nemotron 3.5 Lightning |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1479 | 1314 |
Writing & Preference GLM-5.2 leads
GLM-5.2: 70.4 (#21), Nemotron 3.5 Lightning: 48.5 (#201)
| Benchmark | GLM-5.2 | Nemotron 3.5 Lightning |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1470 | 1327 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1462 | 1254 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1757 | 1280 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1469 | 1328 |
| EQ-Bench 4 | 1222 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is GLM-5.2 better than Nemotron 3.5 Lightning?
GLM-5.2 is the stronger model overall, scoring 51.1 to 40.0 on the Noometry Index. Nemotron 3.5 Lightning costs 25× 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 Nemotron 3.5 Lightning?
Nemotron 3.5 Lightning is cheaper. It lists at $0.05 per million input tokens and $0.20 per million output tokens; GLM-5.2 lists at $1.40 and $4.40.
Is GLM-5.2 or Nemotron 3.5 Lightning better for coding?
GLM-5.2 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 51.3 versus 40.4 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 Nemotron 3.5 Lightning share?
18 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-5.2 has 51 scored results on Noometry and Nemotron 3.5 Lightning has 18.