Model comparison

GLM-5.2 vs Qwen1.5-14B

GLM-5.2 is the stronger model overall, scoring 51.1 to 32.7 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 16 shared benchmarks.

GLM-5.2 Z.ai (Zhipu)

51.1

Rank #44 Confirmed

Qwen1.5-14B Alibaba (Qwen)

32.7

Rank #253 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 16 benchmarks with published results for both. GLM-5.2 scores higher in 8 categories and Qwen1.5-14B 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 33.6.

Side by side

GLM-5.2 and Qwen1.5-14B specifications
GLM-5.2Qwen1.5-14B
ProviderZ.ai (Zhipu)Alibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index51.132.7
Released2026-06-132024-02-04
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window1M—
Max output131K—
Input $ / M tokens$1.40—
Output $ / M tokens$4.40—
Results tracked5117

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), Qwen1.5-14B: 33.1 (#263)

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5.2Qwen1.5-14B
LMArena Coding14851138
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), Qwen1.5-14B: —

Agentic & Tool Use benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5.2Qwen1.5-14B
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), Qwen1.5-14B: 21.4 (#223)

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5.2Qwen1.5-14B
LMArena Hard Prompts14801113
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), Qwen1.5-14B: 32.4 (#215)

Math benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5.2Qwen1.5-14B
LMArena Math14821125
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), Qwen1.5-14B: 29.8 (#232)

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5.2Qwen1.5-14B
LMArena Expert14861094
GPQA Diamond91.9%—
SimpleQA Verified34.2%—
MMLU—68.6%

Multilingual GLM-5.2 leads

GLM-5.2: 55.8 (#26), Qwen1.5-14B: 30.7 (#262)

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5.2Qwen1.5-14B
LMArena Non-English14591095
LMArena Chinese15191147
LMArena French14791116
LMArena German14681043
LMArena Japanese14511019
LMArena Russian14661046
LMArena Spanish14771085
LMArena Korean1445—

Instruction Following GLM-5.2 leads

GLM-5.2: 76.9 (#34), Qwen1.5-14B: 56.8 (#271)

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5.2Qwen1.5-14B
LMArena Instruction Following14651102

Long Context GLM-5.2 leads

GLM-5.2: 45.3 (#43), Qwen1.5-14B: 33.7 (#257)

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5.2Qwen1.5-14B
LMArena Longer Query14791113

Writing & Preference GLM-5.2 leads

GLM-5.2: 70.4 (#21), Qwen1.5-14B: 33.6 (#276)

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5.2Qwen1.5-14B
LMArena Text14701128
LMArena Creative Writing14621091
LMArena Multi-Turn14691110
EQ-Bench Creative Writing1757—
EQ-Bench 41222—

Frequently asked questions

Is GLM-5.2 better than Qwen1.5-14B?

GLM-5.2 is the stronger model overall, scoring 51.1 to 32.7 on the Noometry Index.

Is GLM-5.2 or Qwen1.5-14B better for coding?

GLM-5.2 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 51.3 versus 33.1 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do GLM-5.2 and Qwen1.5-14B share?

16 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-5.2 has 51 scored results on Noometry and Qwen1.5-14B has 17.

Related comparisons

Go deeper