# GLM-4.6V vs GPT-5.2 Pro

> GPT-5.2 Pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 52.2 to 40.9 on the Noometry Index. GLM-4.6V costs 128× less per token, which makes it the better buy when GPT-5.2 Pro's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

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

## Summary

- The widest gap is in reasoning, where GPT-5.2 Pro leads 51.8 to 26.5.
- GLM-4.6V is cheaper at $0.30 / $0.90 per million input/output tokens, against $21 / $168 for GPT-5.2 Pro.
- GPT-5.2 Pro 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 Pro |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Z.ai (Zhipu) | OpenAI |
| Noometry Index | 40.9 | 52.2 |
| Rank | 133 | 34 |
| Context | 128K | 400K |
| Input $/M | $0.30 | $21 |
| Output $/M | $0.90 | $168 |
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |

## Coding

- GLM-4.6V: 40.2 (#128)
- GPT-5.2 Pro: —

| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | GPT-5.2 Pro |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1390 | — |

## Reasoning

- GLM-4.6V: 26.5 (#117)
- GPT-5.2 Pro: 51.8 (#31)

| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | GPT-5.2 Pro |
|---|---|---|
| ARC-AGI-2 | — | 54.2% |
| SimpleBench | — | 57.4% |
| NYT Connections (extended) | — | 79.3% |
| ARC-AGI-1 | — | 90.5% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1368 | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 155.41 |

## Math

- GLM-4.6V: —
- GPT-5.2 Pro: 64.8 (#23)

| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | GPT-5.2 Pro |
|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | — | 74% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | — | 46% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | — | 31.3% |

## Knowledge

- GLM-4.6V: 37.4 (#148)
- GPT-5.2 Pro: —

| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | GPT-5.2 Pro |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1372 | — |

## Multimodal

- GLM-4.6V: 34.2 (#83)
- GPT-5.2 Pro: —

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

## Multilingual

- GLM-4.6V: 48.8 (#135)
- GPT-5.2 Pro: —

| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | GPT-5.2 Pro |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1359 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 1426 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1341 | — |

## Instruction Following

- GLM-4.6V: 71.6 (#145)
- GPT-5.2 Pro: —

| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | GPT-5.2 Pro |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1351 | — |

## Long Context

- GLM-4.6V: 41.3 (#138)
- GPT-5.2 Pro: —

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

## Writing & Preference

- GLM-4.6V: 56.8 (#132)
- GPT-5.2 Pro: —

| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | GPT-5.2 Pro |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1377 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1347 | — |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1359 | — |

## FAQ

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

GPT-5.2 Pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 52.2 to 40.9 on the Noometry Index. GLM-4.6V costs 128× less per token, which makes it the better buy when GPT-5.2 Pro's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

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

GLM-4.6V is cheaper. It lists at $0.30 per million input tokens and $0.90 per million output tokens; GPT-5.2 Pro lists at $21 and $168.

### Which has the bigger context window?

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

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

0 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-4.6V has 12 scored results on Noometry and GPT-5.2 Pro has 8.