Model comparison

GLM-5.2 vs Wizardlm 13b

GLM-5.2 is the stronger model overall, scoring 51.1 to 31.4 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 10 shared benchmarks.

GLM-5.2 Z.ai (Zhipu)

51.1

Rank #44 Confirmed

Wizardlm 13b Microsoft

31.4

Rank #274 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 10 benchmarks with published results for both. GLM-5.2 scores higher in 7 categories and Wizardlm 13b in 0 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in writing & preference, where GLM-5.2 leads 70.4 to 30.5.

Side by side

GLM-5.2 and Wizardlm 13b specifications
GLM-5.2Wizardlm 13b
ProviderZ.ai (Zhipu)Microsoft
Noometry Index51.131.4
Released2026-06-13—
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window1M—
Max output131K—
Input $ / M tokens$1.40—
Output $ / M tokens$4.40—
Results tracked5110

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), Wizardlm 13b: 30.1 (#298)

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5.2Wizardlm 13b
LMArena Coding14851035
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), Wizardlm 13b: —

Agentic & Tool Use benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5.2Wizardlm 13b
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), Wizardlm 13b: 19.4 (#259)

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5.2Wizardlm 13b
LMArena Hard Prompts14801018
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), Wizardlm 13b: 30.2 (#238)

Math benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5.2Wizardlm 13b
LMArena Math14821017
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)59.2%—
FrontierMath Tier 429.3%—
MathArena Final-Answer Competitions67.6%—
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202586.4%—
ProofBench35%—

Knowledge Not comparable

GLM-5.2: 57.1 (#40), Wizardlm 13b: —

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5.2Wizardlm 13b
GPQA Diamond91.9%—
SimpleQA Verified34.2%—
LMArena Expert1486—

Multilingual GLM-5.2 leads

GLM-5.2: 55.8 (#26), Wizardlm 13b: 27.1 (#277)

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5.2Wizardlm 13b
LMArena Non-English14591034
LMArena Chinese15191023
LMArena French1479—
LMArena German1468—
LMArena Japanese1451—
LMArena Korean1445—
LMArena Russian1466—
LMArena Spanish1477—

Instruction Following GLM-5.2 leads

GLM-5.2: 76.9 (#34), Wizardlm 13b: 53.5 (#285)

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5.2Wizardlm 13b
LMArena Instruction Following14651048

Long Context GLM-5.2 leads

GLM-5.2: 45.3 (#43), Wizardlm 13b: 32.0 (#273)

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5.2Wizardlm 13b
LMArena Longer Query14791054

Writing & Preference GLM-5.2 leads

GLM-5.2: 70.4 (#21), Wizardlm 13b: 30.5 (#287)

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5.2Wizardlm 13b
LMArena Text14701077
LMArena Creative Writing14621091
LMArena Multi-Turn14691047
EQ-Bench Creative Writing1757—
EQ-Bench 41222—

Frequently asked questions

Is GLM-5.2 better than Wizardlm 13b?

GLM-5.2 is the stronger model overall, scoring 51.1 to 31.4 on the Noometry Index.

Is GLM-5.2 or Wizardlm 13b better for coding?

GLM-5.2 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 51.3 versus 30.1 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do GLM-5.2 and Wizardlm 13b share?

10 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-5.2 has 51 scored results on Noometry and Wizardlm 13b has 10.

Related comparisons

Go deeper