Model comparison

GLM-5.2 vs Phi-3.5-MoE

GLM-5.2 has enough public results to be ranked (#38); Phi-3.5-MoE does not yet, so treat this comparison as directional.

Last verified . 0 shared benchmarks.

GLM-5.2 Z.ai (Zhipu)

50.9

Rank #38 Confirmed

Phi-3.5-MoE Microsoft

—

Unranked

Side by side

GLM-5.2 and Phi-3.5-MoE specifications
GLM-5.2Phi-3.5-MoE
ProviderZ.ai (Zhipu)Microsoft
Noometry Index50.9—
Released2026-06-132024-08-17
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window1M—
Max output131K—
Input $ / M tokens$1.40—
Output $ / M tokens$4.40—
Results tracked503

Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry

Category by category

Coding Not comparable

GLM-5.2: 50.9 (#37), Phi-3.5-MoE: —

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5.2Phi-3.5-MoE
SWE-bench Verified78.7%—
DeepSWE43.8%—
FrontierCode24.5%—
LMArena WebDev1604—
SciCode50.5%—
WeirdML70.1%—
LMArena Coding1484—
ALE-Bench1,047—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

GLM-5.2: 31.6 (#63), Phi-3.5-MoE: —

Agentic & Tool Use benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5.2Phi-3.5-MoE
τ²-bench Banking37.1%—
PostTrainBench31.7%—
GBAEval0%—
Vending-Bench 28,314—

Reasoning Not comparable

GLM-5.2: 42.1 (#46), Phi-3.5-MoE: —

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5.2Phi-3.5-MoE
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%—
LMArena Hard Prompts1480—
Mystery Game Puzzles19%—
DTBench93.6%—
LMCA45.8%—
Surface Evolver Bench55.6%—
Epoch Capabilities Index151.76—
PIQA—88.6%

Math Not comparable

GLM-5.2: 55.4 (#35), Phi-3.5-MoE: —

Math benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5.2Phi-3.5-MoE
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)59.2%—
FrontierMath Tier 429.3%—
MathArena Final-Answer Competitions67.6%—
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202586.4%—
ProofBench35%—
LMArena Math1482—
GSM8K—88.7%

Knowledge Not comparable

GLM-5.2: 57.1 (#36), Phi-3.5-MoE: —

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5.2Phi-3.5-MoE
GPQA Diamond91.9%—
SimpleQA Verified34.2%—
LMArena Expert1484—
BoolQ—84.6%

Multilingual Not comparable

GLM-5.2: 56.0 (#25), Phi-3.5-MoE: —

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5.2Phi-3.5-MoE
LMArena Non-English1459—
LMArena Chinese1518—
LMArena French1476—
LMArena German1470—
LMArena Japanese1451—
LMArena Korean1445—
LMArena Russian1467—
LMArena Spanish1477—

Instruction Following Not comparable

GLM-5.2: 77.1 (#32), Phi-3.5-MoE: —

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5.2Phi-3.5-MoE
LMArena Instruction Following1465—

Long Context Not comparable

GLM-5.2: 45.3 (#43), Phi-3.5-MoE: —

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5.2Phi-3.5-MoE
LMArena Longer Query1479—

Writing & Preference Not comparable

GLM-5.2: 70.7 (#20), Phi-3.5-MoE: —

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5.2Phi-3.5-MoE
LMArena Text1470—
LMArena Creative Writing1465—
EQ-Bench Creative Writing1757—
EQ-Bench 41222—
LMArena Multi-Turn1468—

Frequently asked questions

Is GLM-5.2 better than Phi-3.5-MoE?

GLM-5.2 has enough public results to be ranked (#38); Phi-3.5-MoE does not yet, so treat this comparison as directional.

How many benchmarks do GLM-5.2 and Phi-3.5-MoE share?

0 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-5.2 has 50 scored results on Noometry and Phi-3.5-MoE has 3.

Related comparisons

Go deeper