# Claude 2.1 vs GLM-5.2

> GLM-5.2 is the stronger model overall, scoring 51.1 to 25.2 on the Noometry Index.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/claude-2-1-vs-glm-5-2
- Last updated: 2026-10-10
- Shared benchmarks: 5

## Summary

- They share 5 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude 2.1 scores higher in 0 categories and GLM-5.2 in 4 categories; 4 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where GLM-5.2 leads 55.7 to 10.2.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 1.9% for Claude 2.1 and 86.4% for GLM-5.2.
- GLM-5.2 has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

## Snapshot

| | Claude 2.1 | GLM-5.2 |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | Z.ai (Zhipu) |
| Noometry Index | 25.2 | 51.1 |
| Rank | 345 | 44 |
| Context | — | 1M |
| Input $/M | — | $1.40 |
| Output $/M | — | $4.40 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |

## Coding

- Claude 2.1: 26.2 (#327)
- GLM-5.2: 51.3 (#41)

| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | GLM-5.2 |
|---|---|---|
| WeirdML | 7.1% | 70.1% |
| SWE-bench Verified | — | 78.7% |
| DeepSWE | — | 43.8% |
| FrontierCode | — | 24.5% |
| LMArena WebDev | — | 1603 |
| SciCode | — | 50.5% |
| LMArena Coding | — | 1485 |
| ALE-Bench | — | 1,047 |

## Agentic & Tool Use

- Claude 2.1: —
- GLM-5.2: 32.4 (#63)

| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | GLM-5.2 |
|---|---|---|
| APEX-Agents | — | 45.2% |
| τ²-bench Banking | — | 37.1% |
| PostTrainBench | — | 31.7% |
| GBAEval | — | 0% |
| Vending-Bench 2 | — | 8,314 |

## Reasoning

- Claude 2.1: 21.4 (#221)
- GLM-5.2: 42.3 (#52)

| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | GLM-5.2 |
|---|---|---|
| DTBench | 51% | 93.6% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 119.27 | 151.78 |
| 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% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | — | 1480 |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | — | 19% |
| LMCA | — | 45.8% |
| Surface Evolver Bench | — | 55.6% |
| ForecastBench | 54.2 | — |

## Math

- Claude 2.1: 10.2 (#315)
- GLM-5.2: 55.7 (#43)

| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | GLM-5.2 |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 1.9% | 86.4% |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | — | 59.2% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | — | 29.3% |
| MathArena Final-Answer Competitions | — | 67.6% |
| ProofBench | — | 35% |
| LMArena Math | — | 1482 |

## Knowledge

- Claude 2.1: 15.4 (#292)
- GLM-5.2: 57.1 (#40)

| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | GLM-5.2 |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 33% | 91.9% |
| SimpleQA Verified | — | 34.2% |
| LMArena Expert | — | 1486 |
| MMLU | 73.5% | — |

## Multilingual

- Claude 2.1: —
- GLM-5.2: 55.8 (#26)

| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | GLM-5.2 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | — | 1459 |
| LMArena Chinese | — | 1519 |
| LMArena French | — | 1479 |
| LMArena German | — | 1468 |
| LMArena Japanese | — | 1451 |
| LMArena Korean | — | 1445 |
| LMArena Russian | — | 1466 |
| LMArena Spanish | — | 1477 |

## Instruction Following

- Claude 2.1: —
- GLM-5.2: 76.9 (#34)

| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | GLM-5.2 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | — | 1465 |

## Long Context

- Claude 2.1: —
- GLM-5.2: 45.3 (#43)

| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | GLM-5.2 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | — | 1479 |

## Writing & Preference

- Claude 2.1: —
- GLM-5.2: 70.4 (#21)

| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | GLM-5.2 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | — | 1470 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | — | 1462 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | — | 1757 |
| EQ-Bench 4 | — | 1222 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | — | 1469 |

## FAQ

### Is Claude 2.1 better than GLM-5.2?

GLM-5.2 is the stronger model overall, scoring 51.1 to 25.2 on the Noometry Index.

### Is Claude 2.1 or GLM-5.2 better for coding?

GLM-5.2 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 51.3 versus 26.2 in the Noometry coding category.

### How many benchmarks do Claude 2.1 and GLM-5.2 share?

5 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude 2.1 has 7 scored results on Noometry and GLM-5.2 has 51.