# GLM-5.2 vs Grok 4.1 Fast

> GLM-5.2 is the stronger model overall, scoring 50.9 to 40.9 on the Noometry Index. Grok 4.1 Fast costs 7.8× 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/glm-5-2-vs-grok-4-1-fast
- Last updated: 2026-10-10
- Shared benchmarks: 27

## Summary

- They share 27 benchmarks with published results for both. GLM-5.2 scores higher in 7 categories and Grok 4.1 Fast in 2 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where GLM-5.2 leads 55.4 to 30.9.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is ProofBench: 35% for GLM-5.2 and 4% for Grok 4.1 Fast.
- Grok 4.1 Fast is cheaper at $0.20 / $0.50 per million input/output tokens, against $1.40 / $4.40 for GLM-5.2.
- GLM-5.2 accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 128K.
- GLM-5.2 has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

## Snapshot

| | GLM-5.2 | Grok 4.1 Fast |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Z.ai (Zhipu) | xAI |
| Noometry Index | 50.9 | 40.9 |
| Rank | 38 | 131 |
| Context | 1M | 128K |
| Input $/M | $1.40 | $0.20 |
| Output $/M | $4.40 | $0.50 |
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |

## Coding

- GLM-5.2: 50.9 (#37)
- Grok 4.1 Fast: 33.8 (#236)

| Benchmark | GLM-5.2 | Grok 4.1 Fast |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena WebDev | 1604 | 1241 |
| LMArena Coding | 1484 | 1411 |
| ALE-Bench | 1,047 | 394.93 |
| SWE-bench Verified | 78.7% | — |
| DeepSWE | 43.8% | — |
| FrontierCode | 24.5% | — |
| SciCode | 50.5% | — |
| WeirdML | 70.1% | — |

## Agentic & Tool Use

- GLM-5.2: 31.6 (#63)
- Grok 4.1 Fast: 36.1 (#35)

| Benchmark | GLM-5.2 | Grok 4.1 Fast |
|---|---|---|
| τ²-bench Banking | 37.1% | 13.1% |
| Vending-Bench 2 | 8,314 | 1,107 |
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | — | 69.6% |
| PostTrainBench | 31.7% | — |
| GBAEval | 0% | — |
| LMArena Search | — | 1171 |

## Reasoning

- GLM-5.2: 42.1 (#46)
- Grok 4.1 Fast: 42.3 (#45)

| Benchmark | GLM-5.2 | Grok 4.1 Fast |
|---|---|---|
| SimpleBench | 58.8% | 56% |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 74.3% | 87.4% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1480 | 1407 |
| DTBench | 93.6% | 87.7% |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 22.8% | — |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 62.6% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 77% | — |
| CritPt | 20.9% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | 21% | — |
| EBR-Bench | 9.5% | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 19% | — |
| LMCA | 45.8% | — |
| Surface Evolver Bench | 55.6% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 151.76 | — |
| ForecastBench | — | 61 |

## Math

- GLM-5.2: 55.4 (#35)
- Grok 4.1 Fast: 30.9 (#201)

| Benchmark | GLM-5.2 | Grok 4.1 Fast |
|---|---|---|
| MathArena Final-Answer Competitions | 67.6% | 60.9% |
| ProofBench | 35% | 4% |
| LMArena Math | 1482 | 1408 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 59.2% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 29.3% | — |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 86.4% | — |

## Knowledge

- GLM-5.2: 57.1 (#36)
- Grok 4.1 Fast: 32.6 (#203)

| Benchmark | GLM-5.2 | Grok 4.1 Fast |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1484 | 1398 |
| GPQA Diamond | 91.9% | — |
| SimpleQA Verified | 34.2% | — |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | — | 17.8% |

## Multimodal

- GLM-5.2: —
- Grok 4.1 Fast: 36.3 (#71)

| Benchmark | GLM-5.2 | Grok 4.1 Fast |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | — | 1201 |

## Multilingual

- GLM-5.2: 56.0 (#25)
- Grok 4.1 Fast: 51.1 (#110)

| Benchmark | GLM-5.2 | Grok 4.1 Fast |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1459 | 1391 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1518 | 1441 |
| LMArena French | 1476 | 1416 |
| LMArena German | 1470 | 1404 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1451 | 1347 |
| LMArena Korean | 1445 | 1361 |
| LMArena Russian | 1467 | 1387 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1477 | 1411 |

## Instruction Following

- GLM-5.2: 77.1 (#32)
- Grok 4.1 Fast: 72.8 (#127)

| Benchmark | GLM-5.2 | Grok 4.1 Fast |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1465 | 1376 |

## Long Context

- GLM-5.2: 45.3 (#43)
- Grok 4.1 Fast: 42.4 (#121)

| Benchmark | GLM-5.2 | Grok 4.1 Fast |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1479 | 1390 |

## Writing & Preference

- GLM-5.2: 70.7 (#20)
- Grok 4.1 Fast: 57.4 (#126)

| Benchmark | GLM-5.2 | Grok 4.1 Fast |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1470 | 1408 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1465 | 1394 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1757 | 1327 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1468 | 1389 |
| EQ-Bench 4 | 1222 | — |

## FAQ

### Is GLM-5.2 better than Grok 4.1 Fast?

GLM-5.2 is the stronger model overall, scoring 50.9 to 40.9 on the Noometry Index. Grok 4.1 Fast costs 7.8× less per token, which makes it the better buy when GLM-5.2's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

### Which is cheaper, GLM-5.2 or Grok 4.1 Fast?

Grok 4.1 Fast is cheaper. It lists at $0.20 per million input tokens and $0.50 per million output tokens; GLM-5.2 lists at $1.40 and $4.40.

### Is GLM-5.2 or Grok 4.1 Fast better for coding?

GLM-5.2 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 50.9 versus 33.8 in the Noometry coding category.

### Which has the bigger context window?

GLM-5.2 does, with 1M tokens against 128K.

### How many benchmarks do GLM-5.2 and Grok 4.1 Fast share?

27 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-5.2 has 50 scored results on Noometry and Grok 4.1 Fast has 32.