# Gemini 2.0 Pro vs GLM-5.2

> GLM-5.2 is the stronger model overall, scoring 50.9 to 38.6 on the Noometry Index.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/gemini-2-0-pro-vs-glm-5-2
- Last updated: 2026-10-10
- Shared benchmarks: 2

## Summary

- They share 2 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemini 2.0 Pro scores higher in 0 categories and GLM-5.2 in 7 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in reasoning, where GLM-5.2 leads 42.1 to 21.6.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is GPQA Diamond: 65.7% for Gemini 2.0 Pro and 91.9% for GLM-5.2.
- GLM-5.2 has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

## Snapshot

| | Gemini 2.0 Pro | GLM-5.2 |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Google | Z.ai (Zhipu) |
| Noometry Index | 38.6 | 50.9 |
| Rank | 171 | 38 |
| Context | — | 1M |
| Input $/M | — | $1.40 |
| Output $/M | — | $4.40 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |

## Coding

- Gemini 2.0 Pro: 37.4 (#182)
- GLM-5.2: 50.9 (#37)

| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | GLM-5.2 |
|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench Verified | — | 78.7% |
| DeepSWE | — | 43.8% |
| FrontierCode | — | 24.5% |
| Aider Polyglot | 35.6% | — |
| LMArena WebDev | — | 1604 |
| SciCode | — | 50.5% |
| WeirdML | — | 70.1% |
| LiveBench Coding | 63.5% | — |
| LMArena Coding | — | 1484 |
| ALE-Bench | — | 1,047 |

## Agentic & Tool Use

- Gemini 2.0 Pro: —
- GLM-5.2: 31.6 (#63)

| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | GLM-5.2 |
|---|---|---|
| τ²-bench Banking | — | 37.1% |
| PostTrainBench | — | 31.7% |
| GBAEval | — | 0% |
| Vending-Bench 2 | — | 8,314 |

## Reasoning

- Gemini 2.0 Pro: 21.6 (#194)
- GLM-5.2: 42.1 (#46)

| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | GLM-5.2 |
|---|---|---|
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 135.06 | 151.76 |
| 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% |
| EnigmaEval | 0.7% | — |
| EBR-Bench | — | 9.5% |
| LiveBench Reasoning | 60.1% | — |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | — | 1480 |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | — | 19% |
| DTBench | — | 93.6% |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | 68% | — |
| LMCA | — | 45.8% |
| Surface Evolver Bench | — | 55.6% |
| LiveBench | 65.1% | — |

## Math

- Gemini 2.0 Pro: 37.1 (#101)
- GLM-5.2: 55.4 (#35)

| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | GLM-5.2 |
|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | — | 59.2% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | — | 29.3% |
| MathArena Final-Answer Competitions | — | 67.6% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 86.4% |
| ProofBench | — | 35% |
| LiveBench Math | 71% | — |
| LMArena Math | — | 1482 |
| MATH Level 5 | 83.5% | — |

## Knowledge

- Gemini 2.0 Pro: 36.5 (#156)
- GLM-5.2: 57.1 (#36)

| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | GLM-5.2 |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 65.7% | 91.9% |
| SimpleQA Verified | — | 34.2% |
| Confabulations | 18.4% | — |
| LMArena Expert | — | 1484 |

## Multilingual

- Gemini 2.0 Pro: —
- GLM-5.2: 56.0 (#25)

| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | GLM-5.2 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | — | 1459 |
| LMArena Chinese | — | 1518 |
| LMArena French | — | 1476 |
| LMArena German | — | 1470 |
| LMArena Japanese | — | 1451 |
| LMArena Korean | — | 1445 |
| LMArena Russian | — | 1467 |
| LMArena Spanish | — | 1477 |

## Instruction Following

- Gemini 2.0 Pro: 75.6 (#57)
- GLM-5.2: 77.1 (#32)

| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | GLM-5.2 |
|---|---|---|
| LiveBench Instruction Following | 83.4% | — |
| LMArena Instruction Following | — | 1465 |

## Long Context

- Gemini 2.0 Pro: 29.1 (#287)
- GLM-5.2: 45.3 (#43)

| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | GLM-5.2 |
|---|---|---|
| Fiction.LiveBench | 41.7% | — |
| LMArena Longer Query | — | 1479 |

## Writing & Preference

- Gemini 2.0 Pro: 52.7 (#164)
- GLM-5.2: 70.7 (#20)

| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | GLM-5.2 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | — | 1470 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | — | 1465 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | — | 1757 |
| EQ-Bench 4 | — | 1222 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | — | 1468 |
| LiveBench Language | 44.9% | — |

## FAQ

### Is Gemini 2.0 Pro better than GLM-5.2?

GLM-5.2 is the stronger model overall, scoring 50.9 to 38.6 on the Noometry Index.

### Is Gemini 2.0 Pro or GLM-5.2 better for coding?

GLM-5.2 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 50.9 versus 37.4 in the Noometry coding category.

### How many benchmarks do Gemini 2.0 Pro and GLM-5.2 share?

2 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemini 2.0 Pro has 14 scored results on Noometry and GLM-5.2 has 50.