# Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite vs GLM-5.2

> GLM-5.2 is the stronger model overall, scoring 51.1 to 40.8 on the Noometry Index. Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite costs 3.8× less per token, which makes it the better buy when GLM-5.2's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/gemini-3-1-flash-lite-vs-glm-5-2
- Last updated: 2026-10-12
- Shared benchmarks: 31

## Summary

- They share 31 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite scores higher in 0 categories and GLM-5.2 in 9 categories; 9 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in reasoning, where GLM-5.2 leads 42.3 to 22.9.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is NYT Connections (extended): 8.2% for Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite and 74.3% for GLM-5.2.
- Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite is cheaper at $0.25 / $1.50 per million input/output tokens, against $1.40 / $4.40 for GLM-5.2.
- Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite accepts more context: 1.05M tokens versus 1M.
- GLM-5.2 has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

## Snapshot

| | Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite | GLM-5.2 |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Google | Z.ai (Zhipu) |
| Noometry Index | 40.8 | 51.1 |
| Rank | 144 | 44 |
| Context | 1.05M | 1M |
| Input $/M | $0.25 | $1.40 |
| Output $/M | $1.50 | $4.40 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |

## Coding

- Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite: 37.8 (#188)
- GLM-5.2: 51.3 (#41)

| Benchmark | Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite | GLM-5.2 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena WebDev | 1256 | 1603 |
| SciCode | 41.9% | 50.5% |
| WeirdML | 52.2% | 70.1% |
| LMArena Coding | 1400 | 1485 |
| ALE-Bench | 797.73 | 1,047 |
| SWE-bench Verified | — | 78.7% |
| DeepSWE | — | 43.8% |
| FrontierCode | — | 24.5% |

## Agentic & Tool Use

- Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite: 30.2 (#79)
- GLM-5.2: 32.4 (#63)

| Benchmark | Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite | GLM-5.2 |
|---|---|---|
| APEX-Agents | — | 45.2% |
| τ²-bench Banking | — | 37.1% |
| DeepResearch Bench | 37.3% | — |
| PostTrainBench | — | 31.7% |
| GBAEval | — | 0% |
| Vending-Bench 2 | — | 8,314 |

## Reasoning

- Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite: 22.9 (#186)
- GLM-5.2: 42.3 (#52)

| Benchmark | Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite | GLM-5.2 |
|---|---|---|
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 67.2% | 62.6% |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 8.2% | 74.3% |
| CritPt | 1.1% | 20.9% |
| Chess Puzzles | 25% | 21% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1407 | 1480 |
| DTBench | 76.8% | 93.6% |
| LMCA | 35% | 45.8% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 144.47 | 151.78 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | — | 22.8% |
| SimpleBench | — | 58.8% |
| ARC-AGI-1 | — | 77% |
| EnigmaEval | 3% | — |
| Thematic Generalization | 63.3% | — |
| EBR-Bench | — | 9.5% |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | — | 19% |
| Surface Evolver Bench | — | 55.6% |
| ForecastBench | 54.4 | — |

## Math

- Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite: 40.7 (#90)
- GLM-5.2: 55.7 (#43)

| Benchmark | Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite | GLM-5.2 |
|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 27.7% | 59.2% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 80% | 86.4% |
| LMArena Math | 1428 | 1482 |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | — | 29.3% |
| MathArena Final-Answer Competitions | — | 67.6% |
| ProofBench | — | 35% |

## Knowledge

- Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite: 41.9 (#104)
- GLM-5.2: 57.1 (#40)

| Benchmark | Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite | GLM-5.2 |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 81.8% | 91.9% |
| LMArena Expert | 1398 | 1486 |
| Humanity's Last Exam | 8.6% | — |
| SimpleQA Verified | — | 34.2% |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 8.2% | — |

## Multimodal

- Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite: 39.4 (#60)
- GLM-5.2: —

| Benchmark | Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite | GLM-5.2 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1240 | — |

## Multilingual

- Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite: 52.3 (#86)
- GLM-5.2: 55.8 (#26)

| Benchmark | Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite | GLM-5.2 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1411 | 1459 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1461 | 1519 |
| LMArena French | 1424 | 1479 |
| LMArena German | 1429 | 1468 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1413 | 1451 |
| LMArena Korean | 1392 | 1445 |
| LMArena Russian | 1420 | 1466 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1421 | 1477 |

## Instruction Following

- Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite: 72.7 (#131)
- GLM-5.2: 76.9 (#34)

| Benchmark | Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite | GLM-5.2 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1377 | 1465 |

## Long Context

- Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite: 42.5 (#122)
- GLM-5.2: 45.3 (#43)

| Benchmark | Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite | GLM-5.2 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1394 | 1479 |

## Writing & Preference

- Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite: 60.9 (#94)
- GLM-5.2: 70.4 (#21)

| Benchmark | Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite | GLM-5.2 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1416 | 1470 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1401 | 1462 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1417 | 1469 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | — | 1757 |
| EQ-Bench 4 | — | 1222 |

## FAQ

### Is Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite better than GLM-5.2?

GLM-5.2 is the stronger model overall, scoring 51.1 to 40.8 on the Noometry Index. Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite costs 3.8× less per token, which makes it the better buy when GLM-5.2's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

### Which is cheaper, Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite or GLM-5.2?

Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite is cheaper. It lists at $0.25 per million input tokens and $1.50 per million output tokens; GLM-5.2 lists at $1.40 and $4.40.

### Is Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite or GLM-5.2 better for coding?

GLM-5.2 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 51.3 versus 37.8 in the Noometry coding category.

### Which has the bigger context window?

Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite does, with 1.05M tokens against 1M.

### How many benchmarks do Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite and GLM-5.2 share?

31 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite has 38 scored results on Noometry and GLM-5.2 has 51.