# GLM-4.6V vs GPT-5.2 Codex

> GPT-5.2 Codex is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.6 to 41.3 on the Noometry Index. GLM-4.6V costs 11× less per token, which makes it the better buy when GPT-5.2 Codex's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/glm-4-6v-vs-gpt-5-2-codex
- Last updated: 2026-10-11
- Shared benchmarks: 0

## Summary

- The widest gap is in coding, where GPT-5.2 Codex leads 45.5 to 40.9.
- GLM-4.6V is cheaper at $0.30 / $0.90 per million input/output tokens, against $1.75 / $14 for GPT-5.2 Codex.
- GPT-5.2 Codex accepts more context: 400K tokens versus 128K.
- GLM-4.6V has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

## Snapshot

| | GLM-4.6V | GPT-5.2 Codex |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Z.ai (Zhipu) | OpenAI |
| Noometry Index | 41.3 | 42.6 |
| Rank | 137 | 111 |
| Context | 128K | 400K |
| Input $/M | $0.30 | $1.75 |
| Output $/M | $0.90 | $14 |
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |

## Coding

- GLM-4.6V: 40.9 (#128)
- GPT-5.2 Codex: 45.5 (#71)

| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | GPT-5.2 Codex |
|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench Verified (bash only) | — | 72.8% |
| LMArena WebDev | — | 1339 |
| SWE-bench Multilingual | — | 66.3% |
| LMArena Coding | 1390 | — |
| ALE-Bench | — | 1,300 |

## Agentic & Tool Use

- GLM-4.6V: —
- GPT-5.2 Codex: 41.0 (#22)

| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | GPT-5.2 Codex |
|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench | — | 66.5% |

## Reasoning

- GLM-4.6V: 27.6 (#115)
- GPT-5.2 Codex: —

| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | GPT-5.2 Codex |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1368 | — |

## Knowledge

- GLM-4.6V: 38.0 (#149)
- GPT-5.2 Codex: —

| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | GPT-5.2 Codex |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1371 | — |

## Multimodal

- GLM-4.6V: 34.8 (#90)
- GPT-5.2 Codex: —

| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | GPT-5.2 Codex |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1164 | — |

## Multilingual

- GLM-4.6V: 48.6 (#141)
- GPT-5.2 Codex: —

| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | GPT-5.2 Codex |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1359 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 1425 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1340 | — |

## Instruction Following

- GLM-4.6V: 71.4 (#151)
- GPT-5.2 Codex: —

| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | GPT-5.2 Codex |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1352 | — |

## Long Context

- GLM-4.6V: 41.3 (#143)
- GPT-5.2 Codex: —

| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | GPT-5.2 Codex |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1358 | — |

## Writing & Preference

- GLM-4.6V: 56.6 (#137)
- GPT-5.2 Codex: —

| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | GPT-5.2 Codex |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1377 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1347 | — |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1360 | — |

## FAQ

### Is GLM-4.6V better than GPT-5.2 Codex?

GPT-5.2 Codex is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.6 to 41.3 on the Noometry Index. GLM-4.6V costs 11× less per token, which makes it the better buy when GPT-5.2 Codex's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

### Which is cheaper, GLM-4.6V or GPT-5.2 Codex?

GLM-4.6V is cheaper. It lists at $0.30 per million input tokens and $0.90 per million output tokens; GPT-5.2 Codex lists at $1.75 and $14.

### Is GLM-4.6V or GPT-5.2 Codex better for coding?

GPT-5.2 Codex scores higher on coding benchmarks: 45.5 versus 40.9 in the Noometry coding category.

### Which has the bigger context window?

GPT-5.2 Codex does, with 400K tokens against 128K.

### How many benchmarks do GLM-4.6V and GPT-5.2 Codex share?

0 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-4.6V has 12 scored results on Noometry and GPT-5.2 Codex has 5.