Model comparison
GLM-5.2 vs Qwen2.5 72B Instruct
GLM-5.2 is the stronger model overall, scoring 51.1 to 31.9 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 23 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 23 benchmarks with published results for both. GLM-5.2 scores higher in 9 categories and Qwen2.5 72B Instruct in 0 categories; 9 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where GLM-5.2 leads 55.7 to 19.3.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 86.4% for GLM-5.2 and 8.1% for Qwen2.5 72B Instruct.
- GLM-5.2 is cheaper at $1.40 / $4.40 per million input/output tokens, against $1.40 / $5.60 for Qwen2.5 72B Instruct.
- GLM-5.2 accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 131K.
Side by side
| GLM-5.2 | Qwen2.5 72B Instruct | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Z.ai (Zhipu) | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 51.1 | 31.9 |
| Released | 2026-06-13 | 2024-09 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | 1M | 131K |
| Max output | 131K | 8K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $1.40 | $1.40 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $4.40 | $5.60 |
| Results tracked | 51 | 43 |
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), Qwen2.5 72B Instruct: 33.2 (#260)
| Benchmark | GLM-5.2 | Qwen2.5 72B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| WeirdML | 70.1% | 16% |
| LMArena Coding | 1485 | 1292 |
| SWE-bench Verified | 78.7% | — |
| DeepSWE | 43.8% | — |
| FrontierCode | 24.5% | — |
| LMArena WebDev | 1603 | — |
| SciCode | 50.5% | — |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | — | 45.8% |
| BigCodeBench Complete | — | 55.9% |
| ALE-Bench | 1,047 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use GLM-5.2 leads
GLM-5.2: 32.4 (#63), Qwen2.5 72B Instruct: 22.1 (#133)
| Benchmark | GLM-5.2 | Qwen2.5 72B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| APEX-Agents | 45.2% | — |
| TheAgentCompany | — | 5.7% |
| τ²-bench Banking | 37.1% | — |
| PostTrainBench | 31.7% | — |
| BALROG | — | 16.2% |
| GBAEval | 0% | — |
| METR Time Horizons | — | 35.8% |
| Vending-Bench 2 | 8,314 | — |
Reasoning GLM-5.2 leads
GLM-5.2: 42.3 (#52), Qwen2.5 72B Instruct: 22.3 (#199)
| Benchmark | GLM-5.2 | Qwen2.5 72B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1480 | 1271 |
| DTBench | 93.6% | 62.9% |
| LMCA | 45.8% | 13.4% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 151.78 | 129 |
| 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% | — |
| Surface Evolver Bench | 55.6% | — |
| BIG-Bench Hard | — | 79.8% |
| ForecastBench | — | 57.5 |
| HellaSwag | — | 84.8% |
| PIQA | — | 82.6% |
| WinoGrande | — | 82.3% |
Math GLM-5.2 leads
GLM-5.2: 55.7 (#43), Qwen2.5 72B Instruct: 19.3 (#287)
| Benchmark | GLM-5.2 | Qwen2.5 72B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 86.4% | 8.1% |
| LMArena Math | 1482 | 1283 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 59.2% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 29.3% | — |
| MathArena Final-Answer Competitions | 67.6% | — |
| ProofBench | 35% | — |
| Omni-MATH | — | 33% |
| MATH Level 5 | — | 63.2% |
Knowledge GLM-5.2 leads
GLM-5.2: 57.1 (#40), Qwen2.5 72B Instruct: 27.0 (#253)
| Benchmark | GLM-5.2 | Qwen2.5 72B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 91.9% | 49.1% |
| LMArena Expert | 1486 | 1245 |
| SimpleQA Verified | 34.2% | — |
| MMLU-Pro | — | 63.1% |
| Confabulations | — | 19.1% |
| GPQA (HELM) | — | 42.6% |
| ARC (AI2) Challenge | — | 94.5% |
| MMLU | — | 85.3% |
| TriviaQA | — | 71.9% |
Multilingual GLM-5.2 leads
GLM-5.2: 55.8 (#26), Qwen2.5 72B Instruct: 41.0 (#213)
| Benchmark | GLM-5.2 | Qwen2.5 72B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1459 | 1252 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1519 | 1272 |
| LMArena French | 1479 | 1280 |
| LMArena German | 1468 | 1234 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1451 | 1180 |
| LMArena Korean | 1445 | 1188 |
| LMArena Russian | 1466 | 1264 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1477 | 1256 |
Instruction Following GLM-5.2 leads
GLM-5.2: 76.9 (#34), Qwen2.5 72B Instruct: 65.5 (#221)
| Benchmark | GLM-5.2 | Qwen2.5 72B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1465 | 1254 |
| IFEval | — | 80.6% |
Long Context GLM-5.2 leads
GLM-5.2: 45.3 (#43), Qwen2.5 72B Instruct: 38.9 (#188)
| Benchmark | GLM-5.2 | Qwen2.5 72B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1479 | 1282 |
Writing & Preference GLM-5.2 leads
GLM-5.2: 70.4 (#21), Qwen2.5 72B Instruct: 46.7 (#215)
| Benchmark | GLM-5.2 | Qwen2.5 72B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1470 | 1269 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1462 | 1221 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1469 | 1272 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1757 | — |
| WildBench | — | 80.2% |
| EQ-Bench 4 | 1222 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is GLM-5.2 better than Qwen2.5 72B Instruct?
GLM-5.2 is the stronger model overall, scoring 51.1 to 31.9 on the Noometry Index.
Which is cheaper, GLM-5.2 or Qwen2.5 72B Instruct?
GLM-5.2 is cheaper. It lists at $1.40 per million input tokens and $4.40 per million output tokens; Qwen2.5 72B Instruct lists at $1.40 and $5.60.
Is GLM-5.2 or Qwen2.5 72B Instruct better for coding?
GLM-5.2 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 51.3 versus 33.2 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
GLM-5.2 does, with 1M tokens against 131K.
How many benchmarks do GLM-5.2 and Qwen2.5 72B Instruct share?
23 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-5.2 has 51 scored results on Noometry and Qwen2.5 72B Instruct has 43.