# GLM-5.2 vs Grok 4

> GLM-5.2 is the stronger model overall, scoring 51.1 to 48.1 on the Noometry Index.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/glm-5-2-vs-grok-4
- Last updated: 2026-10-10
- Shared benchmarks: 26

## Summary

- They share 26 benchmarks with published results for both. GLM-5.2 scores higher in 7 categories and Grok 4 in 2 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in long context, where Grok 4 leads 63.1 to 45.3.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is WeirdML: 70.1% for GLM-5.2 and 45.7% for Grok 4.
- GLM-5.2 has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

## Snapshot

| | GLM-5.2 | Grok 4 |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Z.ai (Zhipu) | xAI |
| Noometry Index | 51.1 | 48.1 |
| Rank | 44 | 56 |
| Context | 1M | — |
| Input $/M | $1.40 | — |
| Output $/M | $4.40 | — |
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |

## Coding

- GLM-5.2: 51.3 (#41)
- Grok 4: 50.3 (#46)

| Benchmark | GLM-5.2 | Grok 4 |
|---|---|---|
| WeirdML | 70.1% | 45.7% |
| LMArena Coding | 1485 | 1408 |
| SWE-bench Verified | 78.7% | — |
| DeepSWE | 43.8% | — |
| FrontierCode | 24.5% | — |
| Aider Polyglot | — | 79.6% |
| LMArena WebDev | 1603 | — |
| SciCode | 50.5% | — |
| ALE-Bench | 1,047 | — |

## Agentic & Tool Use

- GLM-5.2: 32.4 (#63)
- Grok 4: 32.3 (#68)

| Benchmark | GLM-5.2 | Grok 4 |
|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench | — | 27.2% |
| APEX-Agents | 45.2% | — |
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | — | 63% |
| GDPval | — | 21.1% |
| τ²-bench Banking | 37.1% | — |
| Cybench | — | 43% |
| DeepResearch Bench | — | 47.3% |
| PostTrainBench | 31.7% | — |
| BALROG | — | 43.6% |
| GBAEval | 0% | — |
| LMArena Search | — | 1142 |
| METR Time Horizons | — | 66.6% |
| Vending-Bench 2 | 8,314 | — |

## Reasoning

- GLM-5.2: 42.3 (#52)
- Grok 4: 36.7 (#65)

| Benchmark | GLM-5.2 | Grok 4 |
|---|---|---|
| ARC-AGI-2 | 22.8% | 16% |
| SimpleBench | 58.8% | 60.5% |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 62.6% | 73.6% |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 77% | 66.7% |
| Chess Puzzles | 21% | 28% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1480 | 1409 |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 151.78 | 146.44 |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 74.3% | — |
| CritPt | 20.9% | — |
| EBR-Bench | 9.5% | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 19% | — |
| DTBench | 93.6% | — |
| LMCA | 45.8% | — |
| Surface Evolver Bench | 55.6% | — |
| ForecastBench | — | 60.9 |

## Math

- GLM-5.2: 55.7 (#43)
- Grok 4: 48.4 (#64)

| Benchmark | GLM-5.2 | Grok 4 |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 86.4% | 84% |
| LMArena Math | 1482 | 1422 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 59.2% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 29.3% | — |
| MathArena Final-Answer Competitions | 67.6% | — |
| ProofBench | 35% | — |
| Omni-MATH | — | 60.3% |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | — | 19.7% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | — | 2.1% |

## Knowledge

- GLM-5.2: 57.1 (#40)
- Grok 4: 53.8 (#55)

| Benchmark | GLM-5.2 | Grok 4 |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 91.9% | 87% |
| LMArena Expert | 1486 | 1415 |
| SimpleQA Verified | 34.2% | — |
| MMLU-Pro | — | 85.1% |
| Confabulations | — | 12.4% |
| GPQA (HELM) | — | 72.7% |

## Multimodal

- GLM-5.2: —
- Grok 4: 33.7 (#94)

| Benchmark | GLM-5.2 | Grok 4 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | — | 1210 |
| GeoBench | — | 45% |

## Multilingual

- GLM-5.2: 55.8 (#26)
- Grok 4: 51.8 (#103)

| Benchmark | GLM-5.2 | Grok 4 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1459 | 1403 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1519 | 1427 |
| LMArena French | 1479 | 1418 |
| LMArena German | 1468 | 1429 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1451 | 1394 |
| LMArena Korean | 1445 | 1377 |
| LMArena Russian | 1466 | 1410 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1477 | 1420 |

## Instruction Following

- GLM-5.2: 76.9 (#34)
- Grok 4: 79.2 (#5)

| Benchmark | GLM-5.2 | Grok 4 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1465 | 1387 |
| IFEval | — | 94.9% |

## Long Context

- GLM-5.2: 45.3 (#43)
- Grok 4: 63.1 (#4)

| Benchmark | GLM-5.2 | Grok 4 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1479 | 1409 |
| Fiction.LiveBench | — | 94.4% |

## Writing & Preference

- GLM-5.2: 70.4 (#21)
- Grok 4: 58.5 (#116)

| Benchmark | GLM-5.2 | Grok 4 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1470 | 1411 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1462 | 1397 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1469 | 1416 |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | — | 76.9% |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1757 | — |
| WildBench | — | 79.7% |
| EQ-Bench 4 | 1222 | — |

## FAQ

### Is GLM-5.2 better than Grok 4?

GLM-5.2 is the stronger model overall, scoring 51.1 to 48.1 on the Noometry Index.

### Is GLM-5.2 or Grok 4 better for coding?

They score almost the same on coding (51.3 vs 50.3); test both on your own repository before choosing.

### How many benchmarks do GLM-5.2 and Grok 4 share?

26 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-5.2 has 51 scored results on Noometry and Grok 4 has 48.