Model comparison

GLM-5.2 vs Step 3

GLM-5.2 is the stronger model overall, scoring 51.1 to 40.5 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 16 shared benchmarks.

GLM-5.2 Z.ai (Zhipu)

51.1

Rank #44 Confirmed

Step 3 StepFun

40.5

Rank #149 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 16 benchmarks with published results for both. GLM-5.2 scores higher in 8 categories and Step 3 in 0 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in knowledge, where GLM-5.2 leads 57.1 to 36.8.

Side by side

GLM-5.2 and Step 3 specifications
GLM-5.2Step 3
ProviderZ.ai (Zhipu)StepFun
Noometry Index51.140.5
Released2026-06-13—
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), Step 3: 40.1 (#147)

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5.2Step 3
LMArena Coding14851367
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), Step 3: —

Agentic & Tool Use benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5.2Step 3
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), Step 3: 28.4 (#105)

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5.2Step 3
Kagi LLM Benchmark62.6%62.3%
LMArena Hard Prompts14801355
ARC-AGI-222.8%—
SimpleBench58.8%—
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), Step 3: 37.6 (#148)

Math benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5.2Step 3
LMArena Math14821366
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), Step 3: 36.8 (#164)

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5.2Step 3
LMArena Expert14861333
GPQA Diamond91.9%—
SimpleQA Verified34.2%—

Multimodal Not comparable

GLM-5.2: —, Step 3: 35.5 (#86)

Multimodal benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5.2Step 3
LMArena Vision—1177

Multilingual GLM-5.2 leads

GLM-5.2: 55.8 (#26), Step 3: 46.3 (#159)

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5.2Step 3
LMArena Non-English14591327
LMArena Chinese15191397
LMArena German14681371
LMArena Korean14451269
LMArena Russian14661331
LMArena Spanish14771371
LMArena French1479—
LMArena Japanese1451—

Instruction Following GLM-5.2 leads

GLM-5.2: 76.9 (#34), Step 3: 70.4 (#164)

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5.2Step 3
LMArena Instruction Following14651332

Long Context GLM-5.2 leads

GLM-5.2: 45.3 (#43), Step 3: 40.3 (#157)

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5.2Step 3
LMArena Longer Query14791326

Writing & Preference GLM-5.2 leads

GLM-5.2: 70.4 (#21), Step 3: 54.3 (#151)

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5.2Step 3
LMArena Text14701350
LMArena Creative Writing14621321
LMArena Multi-Turn14691341
EQ-Bench Creative Writing1757—
EQ-Bench 41222—

Frequently asked questions

Is GLM-5.2 better than Step 3?

GLM-5.2 is the stronger model overall, scoring 51.1 to 40.5 on the Noometry Index.

Is GLM-5.2 or Step 3 better for coding?

GLM-5.2 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 51.3 versus 40.1 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do GLM-5.2 and Step 3 share?

16 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-5.2 has 51 scored results on Noometry and Step 3 has 17.

Related comparisons

Go deeper