Model comparison

GLM-5.2 vs Olmo 3 32b Think

GLM-5.2 is the stronger model overall, scoring 51.1 to 38.7 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 14 shared benchmarks.

GLM-5.2 Z.ai (Zhipu)

51.1

Rank #44 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 14 benchmarks with published results for both. GLM-5.2 scores higher in 8 categories and Olmo 3 32b Think in 0 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in knowledge, where GLM-5.2 leads 57.1 to 35.0.

Side by side

GLM-5.2 and Olmo 3 32b Think specifications
GLM-5.2Olmo 3 32b Think
ProviderZ.ai (Zhipu)Allen Institute for AI (Ai2)
Noometry Index51.138.7
Released2026-06-13—
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window1M—
Max output131K—
Input $ / M tokens$1.40—
Output $ / M tokens$4.40—
Results tracked5114

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), Olmo 3 32b Think: 38.6 (#172)

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5.2Olmo 3 32b Think
LMArena Coding14851319
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), Olmo 3 32b Think: —

Agentic & Tool Use benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5.2Olmo 3 32b Think
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), Olmo 3 32b Think: 25.9 (#140)

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5.2Olmo 3 32b Think
LMArena Hard Prompts14801302
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), Olmo 3 32b Think: 36.5 (#165)

Math benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5.2Olmo 3 32b Think
LMArena Math14821316
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), Olmo 3 32b Think: 35.0 (#190)

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5.2Olmo 3 32b Think
LMArena Expert14861273
GPQA Diamond91.9%—
SimpleQA Verified34.2%—

Multilingual GLM-5.2 leads

GLM-5.2: 55.8 (#26), Olmo 3 32b Think: 41.2 (#210)

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5.2Olmo 3 32b Think
LMArena Non-English14591255
LMArena Chinese15191300
LMArena French14791291
LMArena German14681290
LMArena Russian14661254
LMArena Japanese1451—
LMArena Korean1445—
LMArena Spanish1477—

Instruction Following GLM-5.2 leads

GLM-5.2: 76.9 (#34), Olmo 3 32b Think: 67.2 (#198)

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5.2Olmo 3 32b Think
LMArena Instruction Following14651275

Long Context GLM-5.2 leads

GLM-5.2: 45.3 (#43), Olmo 3 32b Think: 39.4 (#182)

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5.2Olmo 3 32b Think
LMArena Longer Query14791296

Writing & Preference GLM-5.2 leads

GLM-5.2: 70.4 (#21), Olmo 3 32b Think: 49.1 (#193)

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5.2Olmo 3 32b Think
LMArena Text14701300
LMArena Creative Writing14621256
LMArena Multi-Turn14691290
EQ-Bench Creative Writing1757—
EQ-Bench 41222—

Frequently asked questions

Is GLM-5.2 better than Olmo 3 32b Think?

GLM-5.2 is the stronger model overall, scoring 51.1 to 38.7 on the Noometry Index.

Is GLM-5.2 or Olmo 3 32b Think better for coding?

GLM-5.2 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 51.3 versus 38.6 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do GLM-5.2 and Olmo 3 32b Think share?

14 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-5.2 has 51 scored results on Noometry and Olmo 3 32b Think has 14.

Related comparisons

Go deeper