Speed
80tokens a second
Output speed. How fast it writes once the answer starts.
- First token
- 1.8 s
GLM model by Z.ai
GLM-5.2
Z.ai's flagship model for long-horizon tasks, reading text only, with a 1M-token context window and 128K output tokens. API model glm-5.2 at US$1.40 per million input tokens and US$4.40 per million output tokens; also on Google Cloud, Databricks (which lists it as a legacy model) and in Cursor.
Where it sits in Z.ai's lineup
- Stack role
- Foundation Model / Reasoning Engine
- Offered in
- 2 products
- Made by
- Z.ai
- Family
- GLM, version 5.2
- Released
- Jun 16, 2026 Current
- In its family
- Release 1 of 3 in GLM. The newest is GLM-5.3-Flash.
Strengths and weaknesses
Compare with other models Up to 3 beside GLM-5.2
- GLM-5.2
Suggested comparisons
The models a buyer weighs against GLM-5.2, picked on list price. Add one to draw it beside GLM-5.2.
GLM-5.2
Among the 40 current releases on this chart, GLM-5.2's best rank is 29th of 38 on Hard reasoning. On Factuality, Epoch AI's runs on SimpleQA Verified put GLM-5.2 35.5 points under GPT-5.6 Sol, 6.8 points under GPT-5.6 Luna and 16.4 points under Kimi K3. Agentic coding is Artificial Analysis's run on Terminal-Bench 4.0 and Instruction following is Artificial Analysis's run on IFBench, marked on the chart. It ranks lowest on Tool use, 35th of 38 and Math, 25th of 28. Computer use and Multimodal: not yet published by Z.ai or any independent evaluator, checked Nov 2, 2026. Science and Answers in full: published only for another harness, setting or build, listed in the table.
Each axis is one public benchmark at one setting, on its own fixed 0 to 100 scale, so adding a model never moves another. A dotted bridge crosses a missing result, which is never a zero. A hollow mark is a result from another source: the maker's own figure or another lab's run, where the benchmark's usual source has not tested the model yet. The readout names it.
On the chart
- GLM-5.2This pageResults on 8 of 12 axes$1.40 / $4.4080 tokens/sFirst token in 1.8 s
Prices and speeds as of Oct 31, 2026.
GLM-5.2 on each axis8 of 12 with a result
The share of Terminal-Bench 4.0's long terminal tasks the model finishes on its own: services, kernels, proofs and data pipelines, graded on the final artifact with no partial credit.
Terminal-Bench 4.0, pass@1 averaged over 3 runs, mini-swe-agent harness. Where it has no run of a model, the maker's own figure or another lab's run stands in, marked with its benchmark.
- GLM-5.21%Artificial Analysis's runBenchmark: Terminal-Bench 4.0, accuracy, Artificial Analysis run in its own agent harness, where the axis reads pass@1 averaged over 3 runs, mini-swe-agent harness. From another source, so it is drawn and marked but not ranked with the others.Unusual next to its other results. Artificial Analysis ran Terminal-Bench 4.0 in its own agent harness at max effort. Artificial Analysis run of Oct 31, 2026.
The share of SciCode's scientific programming subproblems the model's code solves on the first attempt.
SciCode, subproblem accuracy, pass@1, highest effort run
- GLM-5.251.2%
The share of FrontierMath's held-out research-grade problems (tiers 1 to 3) the model answers correctly.
FrontierMath Tiers 1-3, accuracy, pass@1, highest effort run
- GLM-5.259.2%
The share of GPQA Diamond's graduate-level biology, chemistry and physics questions the model answers correctly.
GPQA Diamond, accuracy, pass@1, highest effort run
- GLM-5.2Published only for another harness, setting or build, listed in the tableNot drawn: Epoch AI 87.9% at another setting. The table below lists it.
The share of Humanity's Last Exam's 2,158 text-only questions, expert-written at the edge of human knowledge, the model answers correctly without tools.
Humanity's Last Exam, accuracy, text-only questions, no tools
- GLM-5.241.1%
The share of each AutomationBench task's objectives the model completes by calling REST APIs across simulated business apps (Gmail, Sheets, Slack, Salesforce, Zendesk, Jira, HubSpot), averaged over tasks. A task that breaks one of its policy guardrails scores zero.
AutomationBench-AA, score, Artificial Analysis run
- GLM-5.228.4%
How much of each OSWorld 2.1 workflow the model completes by operating a real Ubuntu desktop through screenshots, mouse and keyboard: all 108 long tasks across apps, files, mail and browsers, on the September 2026 v2.1 release of the task files. A point is the mean share of each task's weighted checks the model passes (the partial score, as a percentage). The OSWorld team's own runs come first. Where the team has not run a release, the point is another lab's run or the maker's own published figure, marked with who ran it and the benchmark it ran: OSWorld 2.1 in the maker's harness, OSWorld 2.0's offline set or the earlier OSWorld-Verified. Those points are drawn so the release has a figure, and they are not ranked against the team's runs.
OSWorld 2.1, partial score, full 108-task set, v2.1 release
- GLM-5.2Not yet published by Z.ai or any independent evaluator, checked Nov 2, 2026
The share of AA-LCR's questions the model answers correctly by reasoning across long sets of real documents, about 100K tokens each.
AA-LCR v1.1, accuracy, Artificial Analysis run
- GLM-5.278.3%
The share of MMMU-Pro's college-level questions over charts, diagrams and photos the model answers correctly.
MMMU-Pro, overall accuracy, no tools
- GLM-5.2Not yet published by Z.ai or any independent evaluator, checked Nov 2, 2026
The share of AA-Omniscience's 6,000 knowledge questions across 42 economically relevant topics the model answers correctly from memory, without search.
AA-Omniscience Accuracy, accuracy, Artificial Analysis run. Where it has no run of a model, the maker's own figure or another lab's run stands in, marked with its benchmark.
- GLM-5.234.2%Epoch AI's runBenchmark: SimpleQA Verified, mean score, Epoch AI run. From another source, so it is drawn and marked but not ranked with the others.Epoch AI's run at max effort. SimpleQA Verified prints no hallucination rate, so none is shown beside it.
The share of SpeechMap's 2,120 sensitive and controversial but legal requests the model answers in full: arguments, essays and explanations on contested themes in politics, religion, race, sex, history and similar topics, four wordings per theme across 530 themes. SpeechMap's judge rates each response complete, evasive (hedged or redirected), a denial, or an error (the provider's API blocked the request). Only complete answers count, so the point is the share answered in full: 100 minus the share hedged, refused or blocked by the provider. Higher means more lawful requests answered in full. The share blocked at the provider is printed apart in the table, because an API error is not the model declining. Where SpeechMap runs a release both with reasoning off and with reasoning on (a -reasoning or -thinking entry), the reasoning-on entry is used; a release with one entry uses that entry.
SpeechMap, % Complete over 2,120 contested requests, reasoning-on entry
- GLM-5.2Published only for another harness, setting or build, listed in the tableNot drawn: SpeechMap.AI 77.8% at another setting. The table below lists it.
The share of MultiChallenge's multi-turn conversations in which the model keeps every instruction it was given earlier in the conversation.
MultiChallenge, accuracy, Scale AI run. Where it has no run of a model, the maker's own figure or another lab's run stands in, marked with its benchmark.
- GLM-5.273.3%Artificial Analysis's runBenchmark: IFBench, accuracy, Artificial Analysis run. From another source, so it is drawn and marked but not ranked with the others.Artificial Analysis ran IFBench directly at max effort.
Cost, speed, capacity, quality and accuracy for GLM-5.2, with where each figure sits among the 40 models GILD tracks. These measures stand beside the chart and never feed it.
Capacity
1.05Mtokens
Context window. The most one request can hold, as the maker states it.
- Max output
- 944K
Where you can get it
7of 19 routes
Routes offering it. Of the clouds, gateways and coding products GILD tracks, those offering it today.
- Open weights
- Yes
- Licence
- MIT
Figures from Artificial Analysis, OpenRouter, GILD's route matrix and Z.ai, read Oct 29 to Nov 1, 2026. Each measure's definition and source open under . Not yet published for GLM-5.2: Cost per task, Cached input, Whole answer, Reads, Intelligence Index, GDPval knowledge work, Terminal-Bench 4.0, Epoch Capabilities Index, Hallucination rate and Knowledge accuracy.
Every value with its benchmark, run and source
| Axis | Benchmark and setting | GLM-5.2 | Run | Source | Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agentic coding | Terminal-Bench 4.0Accuracy, Artificial Analysis run in its own agent harness. Artificial Analysis ran Terminal-Bench 4.0 in its own agent harness at max effort.Stands in for Terminal-Bench 4.0, pass@1 averaged over 3 runs, mini-swe-agent harness, which has no run of GLM-5.2 yet. | 1%Unusual next to its other results. Artificial Analysis ran Terminal-Bench 4.0 in its own agent harness at max effort. Artificial Analysis run of Oct 31, 2026. | GLM-5.2 (Max)Effort: max. Harness: Artificial Analysis agent harness. | Artificial AnalysisRun by Artificial Analysis | Oct 31, 2026 |
| Code | SciCodeSubproblem accuracy, pass@1, highest effort run | 51.2% | GLM-5.2 (Max)Effort: max. Harness: none. | Artificial Analysis | Oct 31, 2026 |
| Math | FrontierMath Tiers 1-3Accuracy, pass@1, highest effort run | 59.2% | Effort: max. Harness: none. | Epoch AI | Oct 29, 2026 |
| Science | GPQA DiamondAccuracy, pass@1, highest effort run | Published only for another harness, setting or build, listed in the table | Not drawn: Epoch AI 87.9% at another setting, Oct 29, 2026. Source | ||
| Hard reasoning | Humanity's Last ExamAccuracy, text-only questions, no tools | 41.1% | GLM-5.2 (Max)Effort: max. Harness: none. | Artificial Analysis | Oct 31, 2026 |
| Tool use | AutomationBench-AAScore, Artificial Analysis run | 28.4% | GLM-5.2 (Max)Effort: max. Harness: Artificial Analysis AutomationBench harness. | Artificial Analysis | Oct 31, 2026 |
| Computer use | OSWorld 2.1Partial score, full 108-task set, v2.1 release | Not yet published by Z.ai or any independent evaluator, checked Nov 2, 2026 | |||
| Long context | AA-LCR v1.1Accuracy, Artificial Analysis run | 78.3% | GLM-5.2 (Max)Effort: max. Harness: none. | Artificial Analysis | Oct 31, 2026 |
| Multimodal | MMMU-ProOverall accuracy, no tools | Not yet published by Z.ai or any independent evaluator, checked Nov 2, 2026 | |||
| Factuality | SimpleQA VerifiedMean score, Epoch AI run. Epoch AI's run at max effort. SimpleQA Verified prints no hallucination rate, so none is shown beside it.Stands in for AA-Omniscience Accuracy, accuracy, Artificial Analysis run, which has no run of GLM-5.2 yet. | 34.2% | Effort: max. Harness: none. | Epoch AIRun by Epoch AI | Aug 27, 2026 |
| Answers in full | SpeechMap% Complete over 2,120 contested requests, reasoning-on entry | Published only for another harness, setting or build, listed in the table | Not drawn: SpeechMap.AI 77.8% at another setting, Oct 31, 2026. Source | ||
| Instruction following | IFBenchAccuracy, Artificial Analysis run. Artificial Analysis ran IFBench directly at max effort.Stands in for MultiChallenge, accuracy, Scale AI run, which has no run of GLM-5.2 yet. | 73.3% | GLM-5.2 (Max)Effort: max. Harness: none. | Artificial AnalysisRun by Artificial Analysis | Oct 31, 2026 |
Price and speed
- GLM-5.2 lists at $1.40 per million input tokens and $4.40 per million output tokens. Z.ai pricing, Oct 31, 2026.
- GLM-5.2, at max effort, writes 80.3 output tokens per second on Z AI's API, and its first token arrives 1.8 s after the request. Artificial Analysis, Oct 31, 2026.
- Fastest on the chart is the shortest time to a 500-token answer: time to first token plus 500 tokens at the median output speed.
Every model with a result, axis by axis
57 models. A maker's own figure and another lab's run are marked with their benchmark; a missing result reads "Not yet published", never zero.
| Model | Agentic coding | Code | Math | Science | Hard reasoning | Tool use | Computer use | Long context | Multimodal | Factuality | Answers in full | Instructions |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| GLM-5.2 | 1%Run by Artificial AnalysisTerminal-Bench 4.0 | 51.2% | 59.2% | Not yet published | 41.1% | 28.4% | Not yet published | 78.3% | Not yet published | 34.2%Run by Epoch AISimpleQA Verified | Not yet published | 73.3%Run by Artificial AnalysisIFBench |
| ||||||||||||
| GLM-5.3-Flash | 37.4% | 51.6% | 55.8% | 90.2% | 39.9% | 60.4% | 59.1%Reported by Z.aiOSWorld 2.0 | 80% | 86%Run by Vals.aiMMMU-Pro | 28.2% | 65.4% | Not yet published |
| ||||||||||||
| GLM-5.3 | 38.9% | 59% | 68.8% | 90.9% | 42.3% | 62.2% | Not yet published | 79.7% | Not yet published | 32.3% | 71.5% | Not yet published |
| ||||||||||||
| Claude Haiku 5.5 | 36.4% | 55% | 75.1% | 89.6% | 44.4% | 35.4% | 72.4%Reported by AnthropicOSWorld 2.1 | 82.7% | Not yet published | 34.7% | 78.8% | 67.7% |
| ||||||||||||
| Claude Sonnet 5.5 | 64.1% | 61% | 88.8% | 95.6% | 55% | 71.8% | 80.1%Reported by Anthropic | 82.7% | Not yet published | 51.5% | 81.6% | Not yet published |
| ||||||||||||
| Claude Opus 5.5 | 65.2% | 66.9% | 91.2% | 90.6% | 61.4% | 69.5% | 81.8%Reported by Anthropic | 84.7% | 87.7% | 65.5% | 82.8% | Not yet published |
| ||||||||||||
| Claude Fable 5.1 | 58.1% | 63.1% | 90.2% | 93.4%Run by Vals.ai | 59.1% | 59.4% | 80.7%Reported by Anthropic | 85.3% | 86.3%Run by Moonshot AI | 68.4% | 72.4% | Not yet published |
| ||||||||||||
| Claude Opus 5 | 53.5% | 56.4% | 85.6% | 93.9% | 54.9% | 56.6% | 77.7% | 79.3% | 84.7% | 60.9% | 73.7% | Not yet published |
| ||||||||||||
| Claude Sonnet 5 | 10.6% | 54.3% | 65.6% | 80.3% | 41.3% | 36.5% | 57%Reported by Anthropic | 82% | 77.3% | 40.1% | Not yet published | Not yet published |
| ||||||||||||
| Claude Fable 5 | 41.4% | 61% | 87% | 85.9% | 55.5% | 54.1% | Not yet published | 82.3% | Not yet published | 65.4% | 64.8% | 63.5%Run by Artificial AnalysisIFBench |
| ||||||||||||
| Claude Opus 4.8 | 23.2% | 54.4% | 80% | 91% | 48.7% | 45.6% | 54.8%Run by OSWorld teamOSWorld 2.0 | 77.7% | Not yet published | 48.8% | 67.4% | 62.2%Run by Artificial AnalysisIFBench |
| ||||||||||||
| Claude Opus 4.7 | Not yet published | 54.5% | 70.2% | 86.4% | 42.3% | Not yet published | 48.9%Run by OSWorld teamOSWorld 2.0 | 78.7% | 78.8% | 48.9% | 70.2% | 58.6%Run by Artificial AnalysisIFBench |
| ||||||||||||
| Claude Sonnet 4.6 | 3%Run by Artificial AnalysisTerminal-Bench 4.0 | 50.1% | 71.1%Run by Epoch AIOTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 78.8% | 33.6% | 20.1% | 41.5%Run by OSWorld teamOSWorld 2.0 | 80% | 73.3% | 40.9% | 35.8% | 56.6%Run by Artificial AnalysisIFBench |
| ||||||||||||
| Claude Opus 4.6 | Not yet published | Not yet published | 66% | 88.4% | 39.9% | Not yet published | Not yet published | 78% | 75.4% | 47% | 59.9% | 37.2% |
| ||||||||||||
| Claude Opus 4.5 | Not yet published | Not yet published | 34.4% | 86% | 30.1% | Not yet published | Not yet published | 77.3% | 74% | 46.6% | 57.5% | 59% |
| ||||||||||||
| Claude Haiku 4.5 | Not yet published | 42.2% | 66.7%Run by Epoch AIOTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 71.2% | 10.4% | 3.2% | Not yet published | 74.3% | 58.6% | 18% | 24.7% | 50.5% |
| ||||||||||||
| Claude Sonnet 4.5 | Not yet published | 45.7% | 23.9% | 82.3% | 17.8% | 14.1% | Not yet published | 72.3% | 68.7% | 32.9% | 31.4% | 55.3% |
| ||||||||||||
| GPT-6.1 Terra | 49.5% | 55.1% | 90.9% | 94.3% | 46.2% | 60.2% | 74.2%Reported by OpenAIOSWorld 2.1 | 82.7% | 84.7% | 47.6% | Not yet published | 74.2% |
| ||||||||||||
| GPT-6.1 Sol | 55.1% | 54.2% | 93.7% | 95.4% | 52.9% | 64.9% | 78%Reported by OpenAIOSWorld 2.1 | 83% | 86% | 61.8% | 69.5% | 82% |
| ||||||||||||
| GPT-6 Luna | 13.6% | 54.6% | 78.9% | 90.5% | 38.5% | 53.2% | 48.9%Run by AnthropicOSWorld 2.1 | 83.3% | 79.7% | 39.6% | 63.4% | Not yet published |
| ||||||||||||
| GPT-6 Astra | 59.6% | 56.5% | 93.7% | 95.8% | 54.7% | 68.5% | 75.8%Run by Meta | 80.7% | 86.9% | 61.6% | 68.2% | Not yet published |
| ||||||||||||
| GPT-5.6 Sol | 37.9% | 57.1% | 89.1% | 93.5% | 49.5% | 60.1% | 62.7%Run by OSWorld teamOSWorld 2.0 | 84% | 83.4% | 69.7%Run by Epoch AISimpleQA Verified | Not yet published | 72.7%Run by Artificial AnalysisIFBench |
| ||||||||||||
| GPT-5.6 Terra | 22.7% | 55% | 86% | 93.3% | 42.9% | 59.6% | Not yet published | 83% | 80.7% | 42.3% | Not yet published | 71.2%Run by Artificial AnalysisIFBench |
| ||||||||||||
| GPT-5.6 Luna | 11.6% | 53.6% | 82.1% | 91.6% | 39.5% | 50.2% | Not yet published | 83.7% | 78.6% | 41%Run by Epoch AISimpleQA Verified | Not yet published | Not yet published |
| ||||||||||||
| GPT-5.5 | 14.6%Run by Artificial AnalysisTerminal-Bench 4.0 | 55.8% | 85.3% | 93.5%Run by Artificial Analysis | 45.8% | 47.3% | 49.5%Run by OSWorld teamOSWorld 2.0 | 84.3% | 79.9% | 63%Run by Epoch AISimpleQA Verified | Not yet published | 75.9%Run by Artificial AnalysisIFBench |
| ||||||||||||
| GPT-5.4 | Not yet published | Not yet published | 78.6% | 93.3% | 43.7% | Not yet published | Not yet published | 82% | 78.4% | Not yet published | Not yet published | 73.9%Run by Artificial AnalysisIFBench |
| ||||||||||||
| gpt-oss-120b | 14.2%Run by Terminal-Bench (via Epoch AI)Terminal-Bench 2.0 | 34% | 88.9%Run by Epoch AIOTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 75.8% | 19.6% | 0.2% | Not yet published | 52% | Not yet published | 16.8%Reported by OpenAISimpleQA | 36.3% | 45.3% |
| ||||||||||||
| GPT-6 Sol | 44.4% | 57.6% | 89.8% | 94.3% | 47.9% | 61.6% | 64.4%Reported by OpenAIOSWorld 2.0 | 83.7% | 82.9% | 54.5% | 64% | Not yet published |
| ||||||||||||
| GPT-5.3-Codex | Not yet published | Not yet published | Not yet published | 91.5%Run by Artificial Analysis | 42.5% | Not yet published | Not yet published | 83.3% | 78.5% | Not yet published | Not yet published | 75.4%Run by Artificial AnalysisIFBench |
| ||||||||||||
| Gemini 4 Argon | 57.6% | 61.8% | 86% | 96.4% | 57.1% | 77.5% | 69.2%Reported by GoogleOSWorld 2.0 | 79.7% | Not yet published | 48.3% | 87% | 78.7% |
| ||||||||||||
| Gemini 3.8 Flash | 19.7% | 56.6% | 68.4% | 95.4% | 47.8% | 59.9% | 59%Reported by GoogleOSWorld 2.0 | 81.3% | 85.6% | 50.5% | 86.1% | Not yet published |
| ||||||||||||
| Gemma 4 31B | Not yet published | 45.5% | Not yet published | 85.7%Run by Artificial AnalysisGPQA Diamond | 23.6% | 4.9% | Not yet published | 69.7% | 73.4% | 10.4%Run by Epoch AISimpleQA Verified | 82.3% | 75.6%Run by Artificial AnalysisIFBench |
| ||||||||||||
| Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview | 2.5% | 58.7% | 59.6% | 94.4% | 47% | 35.4% | Not yet published | 82% | 82.4% | 54.9% | 59.9% | 71.4% |
| ||||||||||||
| Gemini 3.6 Flash | 7.1%Run by Artificial AnalysisTerminal-Bench 4.0 | 53.4% | 58.9% | 94.1% | 40.8% | 53% | 83%Reported by GoogleOSWorld-Verified | 80% | 83.2% | 66.2%Run by Epoch AISimpleQA Verified | 87.2% | Not yet published |
| ||||||||||||
| DeepSeek V4.1 Flash | 31.8% | 55.9% | 71.2% | 93.2% | 43.3% | 66.6% | 69.3%Run by Moonshot AIOSWorld 2.1 | 82.7% | 80.6% | 39.6% | Not yet published | 74.9% |
| ||||||||||||
| DeepSeek V4 Pro | 14.1% | 51% | 64.6% | 91.7% | 41% | 56.7% | Not yet published | 80.3% | Not yet published | 45.2% | 72% | Not yet published |
| ||||||||||||
| Kimi K3.1 Pro | 63.6% | 60.8% | Not yet published | 94.2%Reported by Moonshot AI | 52.5% | 73.3% | 79.6%Reported by Moonshot AIOSWorld 2.1 | 86.3% | 83.9% | 48.9% | Not yet published | Not yet published |
| ||||||||||||
| Kimi K3 | 17.2% | 59.5% | 72.2% | 93.1% | 46.9% | 58.3% | Not yet published | 88.7% | 80.5% | 50.6%Run by Epoch AISimpleQA Verified | 65.9% | Not yet published |
| ||||||||||||
| Kimi K2.7 Code | 1%Run by Artificial AnalysisTerminal-Bench 4.0 | 47.8% | 54% | 87.9% | 35% | 24.5% | Not yet published | 79.3% | Not yet published | 36.5%Run by Epoch AISimpleQA Verified | Not yet published | 63.1%Run by Artificial AnalysisIFBench |
| ||||||||||||
| Mistral Large 4 | 24.7%Run by Artificial AnalysisTerminal-Bench 4.0 | Not yet published | Not yet published | Not yet published | Not yet published | 57.8% | Not yet published | Not yet published | Not yet published | 26% | Not yet published | Not yet published |
| ||||||||||||
| Mistral Medium 3.5 | 0%Run by Artificial AnalysisTerminal-Bench 4.0 | 40.2% | Not yet published | 74.8%Run by Artificial AnalysisGPQA Diamond | 13.8% | 6.3% | Not yet published | 69.3% | 64.9% | 23% | 70.5% | 68.8%Run by Artificial AnalysisIFBench |
| ||||||||||||
| Grok 4.7 | 28.8% | 57.4% | 53% | 92.7% | 43.1% | 65.6% | Not yet published | 76.7% | Not yet published | 42.7% | 64.1% | Not yet published |
| ||||||||||||
| Grok 4.6 | 17.2% | 56.5% | 66% | 93.2% | 42.9% | 66.7% | Not yet published | 80.3% | Not yet published | 48.9%Run by Epoch AISimpleQA Verified | 83.6% | Not yet published |
| ||||||||||||
| Grok 4.5 | 8.6% | 55% | 57.2% | 93.4% | 42.7% | 57.9% | Not yet published | 79.3% | 80.4% | 48.3%Run by Epoch AISimpleQA Verified | 93.1% | Not yet published |
| ||||||||||||
| MiniMax M3.1 Flash | 25.3% | 53.4% | Not yet published | Not yet published | 48% | 72.5% | 61.7%Reported by MiniMaxOSWorld 2.0 | 79.7% | 79.1% | 45.1% | Not yet published | Not yet published |
| ||||||||||||
| Mercury 3 | 3% | Not yet published | Not yet published | Not yet published | Not yet published | Not yet published | Not yet published | Not yet published | Not yet published | Not yet published | Not yet published | Not yet published |
| Muse Spark Open | 6.6% | 58.4% | 69.8% | 88.6% | 43.9% | 49.7% | 80.4%Reported by MetaOSWorld-Verified | 78.3% | 80.9% | 42% | Not yet published | 74.2% |
| ||||||||||||
| Muse Wonder | 49.5% | 60.3% | 82.1% | Not yet published | 50.1% | 68.1% | 72.6%Reported by Meta | 80.7% | Not yet published | 38% | 42.7% | Not yet published |
| ||||||||||||
| Muse Spark 1.3 | 10.6% | 58.8% | 74% | 93.5%Run by Artificial AnalysisGPQA Diamond | 48.7% | 57.9% | 69.6% | 83% | 82% | 38% | 25.8% | Not yet published |
| ||||||||||||
| Llama 4 Scout | Not yet published | 21.3% | 7.8%Run by Epoch AIOTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 51.8% | 3.8% | 0.2% | Not yet published | 27.7% | 52.9% | Not yet published | 70.1% | 39.5%Run by Artificial AnalysisIFBench |
| ||||||||||||
| Llama 4 Maverick | Not yet published | 31.7% | 20.6%Run by Epoch AIOTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 67% | 4.9% | 0.2% | Not yet published | 50% | 62.1% | Not yet published | 58.3% | 43%Run by Artificial AnalysisIFBench |
| ||||||||||||
| Qwen3.8 27B | 5.6%Run by Artificial AnalysisTerminal-Bench 4.0 | 46.6% | Not yet published | 90.5%Run by Artificial AnalysisGPQA Diamond | 33.9% | 48.2% | 84.3%Reported by AlibabaOSWorld-Verified | 82% | 76.3% | 17.3% | Not yet published | 79.5%Reported by AlibabaIFBench |
| ||||||||||||
| Qwen3.8 Max | 38.9% | 52.1% | 65.6% | 92.3% | 43.1% | 56.2% | Not yet published | 80.3% | 82.8% | 29.5% | 65.3% | Not yet published |
| ||||||||||||
| MiMo-V2.6-Pro | 31.3% | 60.9% | Not yet published | Not yet published | 49.4% | 58.6% | 82%Reported by XiaomiOSWorld-Verified | 86.3% | Not yet published | 34.8% | 66.5% | Not yet published |
| ||||||||||||
| MiMo-V2.6-Flash | 24.2% | 51.3% | Not yet published | Not yet published | 35.1% | 64.1% | 80.8%Reported by XiaomiOSWorld-Verified | 74.3% | 73.1% | 27.2% | 66.9% | Not yet published |
| ||||||||||||
| Ling 3.1 Flash | 32.8%Run by Artificial AnalysisTerminal-Bench 4.0 | 56.8% | Not yet published | Not yet published | 43.5% | 67.5% | Not yet published | 82.3% | Not yet published | 26.5% | Not yet published | Not yet published |
| ||||||||||||
| Step 5 Preview | 31.8% | 58.9% | Not yet published | 93.5%Reported by StepFunGPQA Diamond | 46.5% | 51% | Not yet published | 88.3% | 76.4% | 36.4% | 59.7% | Not yet published |
| ||||||||||||
Agentic codingTerminal-Bench 4.0
- Claude Opus 5.565.2%
- Claude Sonnet 5.564.1%
- Kimi K3.1 Pro63.6%
- GPT-6 Astra59.6%
- Claude Fable 5.158.1%
- Gemini 4 Argon57.6%
- GPT-6.1 Sol55.1%
- Claude Opus 553.5%
- GPT-6.1 Terra49.5%
- Muse Wonder49.5%
- GPT-6 Sol44.4%
- Claude Fable 541.4%
- GLM-5.338.9%
- Qwen3.8 Max38.9%
- GPT-5.6 Sol37.9%
- GLM-5.3-Flash37.4%
- Claude Haiku 5.536.4%
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash31.8%
- Step 5 Preview31.8%
- MiMo-V2.6-Pro31.3%
- Grok 4.728.8%
- MiniMax M3.1 Flash25.3%
- MiMo-V2.6-Flash24.2%
- Claude Opus 4.823.2%
- GPT-5.6 Terra22.7%
- Gemini 3.8 Flash19.7%
- Kimi K317.2%
- Grok 4.617.2%
- DeepSeek V4 Pro14.1%
- GPT-6 Luna13.6%
- GPT-5.6 Luna11.6%
- Claude Sonnet 510.6%
- Muse Spark 1.310.6%
- Grok 4.58.6%
- Muse Spark Open6.6%
- Mercury 33%
- Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview2.5%
- Ling 3.1 Flash32.8%Artificial Analysis's run, Terminal-Bench 4.0
- Mistral Large 424.7%Artificial Analysis's run, Terminal-Bench 4.0
- GPT-5.514.6%Artificial Analysis's run, Terminal-Bench 4.0
- gpt-oss-120b14.2%Terminal-Bench's run, Terminal-Bench 2.0
- Gemini 3.6 Flash7.1%Artificial Analysis's run, Terminal-Bench 4.0
- Qwen3.8 27B5.6%Artificial Analysis's run, Terminal-Bench 4.0
- Claude Sonnet 4.63%Artificial Analysis's run, Terminal-Bench 4.0
- GLM-5.21%Artificial Analysis's run, Terminal-Bench 4.0
- Kimi K2.7 Code1%Artificial Analysis's run, Terminal-Bench 4.0
- Mistral Medium 3.50%Artificial Analysis's run, Terminal-Bench 4.0
The other models in the grid have no result on Terminal-Bench 4.0 yet.
CodeSciCode
- Claude Opus 5.566.9%
- Claude Fable 5.163.1%
- Gemini 4 Argon61.8%
- Claude Sonnet 5.561%
- Claude Fable 561%
- MiMo-V2.6-Pro60.9%
- Kimi K3.1 Pro60.8%
- Muse Wonder60.3%
- Kimi K359.5%
- GLM-5.359%
- Step 5 Preview58.9%
- Muse Spark 1.358.8%
- Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview58.7%
- Muse Spark Open58.4%
- GPT-6 Sol57.6%
- Grok 4.757.4%
- GPT-5.6 Sol57.1%
- Ling 3.1 Flash56.8%
- Gemini 3.8 Flash56.6%
- GPT-6 Astra56.5%
- Grok 4.656.5%
- Claude Opus 556.4%
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash55.9%
- GPT-5.555.8%
- GPT-6.1 Terra55.1%
- Claude Haiku 5.555%
- GPT-5.6 Terra55%
- Grok 4.555%
- GPT-6 Luna54.6%
- Claude Opus 4.754.5%
- Claude Opus 4.854.4%
- Claude Sonnet 554.3%
- GPT-6.1 Sol54.2%
- GPT-5.6 Luna53.6%
- Gemini 3.6 Flash53.4%
- MiniMax M3.1 Flash53.4%
- Qwen3.8 Max52.1%
- GLM-5.3-Flash51.6%
- MiMo-V2.6-Flash51.3%
- GLM-5.251.2%
- DeepSeek V4 Pro51%
- Claude Sonnet 4.650.1%
- Kimi K2.7 Code47.8%
- Qwen3.8 27B46.6%
- Claude Sonnet 4.545.7%
- Gemma 4 31B45.5%
- Claude Haiku 4.542.2%
- Mistral Medium 3.540.2%
- gpt-oss-120b34%
- Llama 4 Maverick31.7%
- Llama 4 Scout21.3%
The other models in the grid have no result on SciCode yet.
MathFrontierMath Tiers 1-3
- GPT-6.1 Sol93.7%
- GPT-6 Astra93.7%
- Claude Opus 5.591.2%
- GPT-6.1 Terra90.9%
- Claude Fable 5.190.2%
- GPT-6 Sol89.8%
- GPT-5.6 Sol89.1%
- Claude Sonnet 5.588.8%
- Claude Fable 587%
- GPT-5.6 Terra86%
- Gemini 4 Argon86%
- Claude Opus 585.6%
- GPT-5.585.3%
- GPT-5.6 Luna82.1%
- Muse Wonder82.1%
- Claude Opus 4.880%
- GPT-6 Luna78.9%
- GPT-5.478.6%
- Claude Haiku 5.575.1%
- Muse Spark 1.374%
- Kimi K372.2%
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash71.2%
- Claude Opus 4.770.2%
- Muse Spark Open69.8%
- GLM-5.368.8%
- Gemini 3.8 Flash68.4%
- Claude Opus 4.666%
- Grok 4.666%
- Claude Sonnet 565.6%
- Qwen3.8 Max65.6%
- DeepSeek V4 Pro64.6%
- Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview59.6%
- GLM-5.259.2%
- Gemini 3.6 Flash58.9%
- Grok 4.557.2%
- GLM-5.3-Flash55.8%
- Kimi K2.7 Code54%
- Grok 4.753%
- Claude Opus 4.534.4%
- Claude Sonnet 4.523.9%
- gpt-oss-120b88.9%Epoch AI's run, OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025
- Claude Sonnet 4.671.1%Epoch AI's run, OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025
- Claude Haiku 4.566.7%Epoch AI's run, OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025
- Llama 4 Maverick20.6%Epoch AI's run, OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025
- Llama 4 Scout7.8%Epoch AI's run, OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025
The other models in the grid have no result on FrontierMath Tiers 1-3 yet.
ScienceGPQA Diamond
- Gemini 4 Argon96.4%
- GPT-6 Astra95.8%
- Claude Sonnet 5.595.6%
- GPT-6.1 Sol95.4%
- Gemini 3.8 Flash95.4%
- Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview94.4%
- GPT-6.1 Terra94.3%
- GPT-6 Sol94.3%
- Gemini 3.6 Flash94.1%
- Claude Opus 593.9%
- GPT-5.6 Sol93.5%
- Grok 4.593.4%
- GPT-5.6 Terra93.3%
- GPT-5.493.3%
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash93.2%
- Grok 4.693.2%
- Kimi K393.1%
- Grok 4.792.7%
- Qwen3.8 Max92.3%
- DeepSeek V4 Pro91.7%
- GPT-5.6 Luna91.6%
- Claude Opus 4.891%
- GLM-5.390.9%
- Claude Opus 5.590.6%
- GPT-6 Luna90.5%
- GLM-5.3-Flash90.2%
- Claude Haiku 5.589.6%
- Muse Spark Open88.6%
- Claude Opus 4.688.4%
- Kimi K2.7 Code87.9%
- Claude Opus 4.786.4%
- Claude Opus 4.586%
- Claude Fable 585.9%
- Claude Sonnet 4.582.3%
- Claude Sonnet 580.3%
- Claude Sonnet 4.678.8%
- gpt-oss-120b75.8%
- Claude Haiku 4.571.2%
- Llama 4 Maverick67%
- Llama 4 Scout51.8%
- Kimi K3.1 Pro94.2%Moonshot AI's own figure
- GPT-5.593.5%Artificial Analysis's run
- Muse Spark 1.393.5%Artificial Analysis's run, GPQA Diamond
- Step 5 Preview93.5%StepFun's own figure, GPQA Diamond
- Claude Fable 5.193.4%Vals.ai's run
- GPT-5.3-Codex91.5%Artificial Analysis's run
- Qwen3.8 27B90.5%Artificial Analysis's run, GPQA Diamond
- Gemma 4 31B85.7%Artificial Analysis's run, GPQA Diamond
- Mistral Medium 3.574.8%Artificial Analysis's run, GPQA Diamond
The other models in the grid have no result on GPQA Diamond yet.
Hard reasoningHumanity's Last Exam
- Claude Opus 5.561.4%
- Claude Fable 5.159.1%
- Gemini 4 Argon57.1%
- Claude Fable 555.5%
- Claude Sonnet 5.555%
- Claude Opus 554.9%
- GPT-6 Astra54.7%
- GPT-6.1 Sol52.9%
- Kimi K3.1 Pro52.5%
- Muse Wonder50.1%
- GPT-5.6 Sol49.5%
- MiMo-V2.6-Pro49.4%
- Claude Opus 4.848.7%
- Muse Spark 1.348.7%
- MiniMax M3.1 Flash48%
- GPT-6 Sol47.9%
- Gemini 3.8 Flash47.8%
- Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview47%
- Kimi K346.9%
- Step 5 Preview46.5%
- GPT-6.1 Terra46.2%
- GPT-5.545.8%
- Claude Haiku 5.544.4%
- Muse Spark Open43.9%
- GPT-5.443.7%
- Ling 3.1 Flash43.5%
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash43.3%
- Grok 4.743.1%
- Qwen3.8 Max43.1%
- GPT-5.6 Terra42.9%
- Grok 4.642.9%
- Grok 4.542.7%
- GPT-5.3-Codex42.5%
- GLM-5.342.3%
- Claude Opus 4.742.3%
- Claude Sonnet 541.3%
- GLM-5.241.1%
- DeepSeek V4 Pro41%
- Gemini 3.6 Flash40.8%
- GLM-5.3-Flash39.9%
- Claude Opus 4.639.9%
- GPT-5.6 Luna39.5%
- GPT-6 Luna38.5%
- MiMo-V2.6-Flash35.1%
- Kimi K2.7 Code35%
- Qwen3.8 27B33.9%
- Claude Sonnet 4.633.6%
- Claude Opus 4.530.1%
- Gemma 4 31B23.6%
- gpt-oss-120b19.6%
- Claude Sonnet 4.517.8%
- Mistral Medium 3.513.8%
- Claude Haiku 4.510.4%
- Llama 4 Maverick4.9%
- Llama 4 Scout3.8%
The other models in the grid have no result on Humanity's Last Exam yet.
Tool useAutomationBench-AA
- Gemini 4 Argon77.5%
- Kimi K3.1 Pro73.3%
- MiniMax M3.1 Flash72.5%
- Claude Sonnet 5.571.8%
- Claude Opus 5.569.5%
- GPT-6 Astra68.5%
- Muse Wonder68.1%
- Ling 3.1 Flash67.5%
- Grok 4.666.7%
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash66.6%
- Grok 4.765.6%
- GPT-6.1 Sol64.9%
- MiMo-V2.6-Flash64.1%
- GLM-5.362.2%
- GPT-6 Sol61.6%
- GLM-5.3-Flash60.4%
- GPT-6.1 Terra60.2%
- GPT-5.6 Sol60.1%
- Gemini 3.8 Flash59.9%
- GPT-5.6 Terra59.6%
- Claude Fable 5.159.4%
- MiMo-V2.6-Pro58.6%
- Kimi K358.3%
- Grok 4.557.9%
- Muse Spark 1.357.9%
- Mistral Large 457.8%
- DeepSeek V4 Pro56.7%
- Claude Opus 556.6%
- Qwen3.8 Max56.2%
- Claude Fable 554.1%
- GPT-6 Luna53.2%
- Gemini 3.6 Flash53%
- Step 5 Preview51%
- GPT-5.6 Luna50.2%
- Muse Spark Open49.7%
- Qwen3.8 27B48.2%
- GPT-5.547.3%
- Claude Opus 4.845.6%
- Claude Sonnet 536.5%
- Claude Haiku 5.535.4%
- Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview35.4%
- GLM-5.228.4%
- Kimi K2.7 Code24.5%
- Claude Sonnet 4.620.1%
- Claude Sonnet 4.514.1%
- Mistral Medium 3.56.3%
- Gemma 4 31B4.9%
- Claude Haiku 4.53.2%
- gpt-oss-120b0.2%
- Llama 4 Scout0.2%
- Llama 4 Maverick0.2%
The other models in the grid have no result on AutomationBench-AA yet.
Computer useOSWorld 2.1
- Claude Opus 577.7%
- Muse Spark 1.369.6%
- Qwen3.8 27B84.3%Alibaba's own figure, OSWorld-Verified
- Gemini 3.6 Flash83%Google's own figure, OSWorld-Verified
- MiMo-V2.6-Pro82%Xiaomi's own figure, OSWorld-Verified
- Claude Opus 5.581.8%Anthropic's own figure
- MiMo-V2.6-Flash80.8%Xiaomi's own figure, OSWorld-Verified
- Claude Fable 5.180.7%Anthropic's own figure
- Muse Spark Open80.4%Meta's own figure, OSWorld-Verified
- Claude Sonnet 5.580.1%Anthropic's own figure
- Kimi K3.1 Pro79.6%Moonshot AI's own figure, OSWorld 2.1
- GPT-6.1 Sol78%OpenAI's own figure, OSWorld 2.1
- GPT-6 Astra75.8%Meta's run
- GPT-6.1 Terra74.2%OpenAI's own figure, OSWorld 2.1
- Muse Wonder72.6%Meta's own figure
- Claude Haiku 5.572.4%Anthropic's own figure, OSWorld 2.1
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash69.3%Moonshot AI's run, OSWorld 2.1
- Gemini 4 Argon69.2%Google's own figure, OSWorld 2.0
- GPT-6 Sol64.4%OpenAI's own figure, OSWorld 2.0
- GPT-5.6 Sol62.7%OSWorld team's run, OSWorld 2.0
- MiniMax M3.1 Flash61.7%MiniMax's own figure, OSWorld 2.0
- GLM-5.3-Flash59.1%Z.ai's own figure, OSWorld 2.0
- Gemini 3.8 Flash59%Google's own figure, OSWorld 2.0
- Claude Sonnet 557%Anthropic's own figure
- Claude Opus 4.854.8%OSWorld team's run, OSWorld 2.0
- GPT-5.549.5%OSWorld team's run, OSWorld 2.0
- Claude Opus 4.748.9%OSWorld team's run, OSWorld 2.0
- GPT-6 Luna48.9%Anthropic's run, OSWorld 2.1
- Claude Sonnet 4.641.5%OSWorld team's run, OSWorld 2.0
The other models in the grid have no result on OSWorld 2.1 yet.
Long contextAA-LCR v1.1
- Kimi K388.7%
- Step 5 Preview88.3%
- Kimi K3.1 Pro86.3%
- MiMo-V2.6-Pro86.3%
- Claude Fable 5.185.3%
- Claude Opus 5.584.7%
- GPT-5.584.3%
- GPT-5.6 Sol84%
- GPT-5.6 Luna83.7%
- GPT-6 Sol83.7%
- GPT-6 Luna83.3%
- GPT-5.3-Codex83.3%
- GPT-6.1 Sol83%
- GPT-5.6 Terra83%
- Muse Spark 1.383%
- Claude Haiku 5.582.7%
- Claude Sonnet 5.582.7%
- GPT-6.1 Terra82.7%
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash82.7%
- Claude Fable 582.3%
- Ling 3.1 Flash82.3%
- Claude Sonnet 582%
- GPT-5.482%
- Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview82%
- Qwen3.8 27B82%
- Gemini 3.8 Flash81.3%
- GPT-6 Astra80.7%
- Muse Wonder80.7%
- DeepSeek V4 Pro80.3%
- Grok 4.680.3%
- Qwen3.8 Max80.3%
- GLM-5.3-Flash80%
- Claude Sonnet 4.680%
- Gemini 3.6 Flash80%
- GLM-5.379.7%
- Gemini 4 Argon79.7%
- MiniMax M3.1 Flash79.7%
- Claude Opus 579.3%
- Kimi K2.7 Code79.3%
- Grok 4.579.3%
- Claude Opus 4.778.7%
- GLM-5.278.3%
- Muse Spark Open78.3%
- Claude Opus 4.678%
- Claude Opus 4.877.7%
- Claude Opus 4.577.3%
- Grok 4.776.7%
- Claude Haiku 4.574.3%
- MiMo-V2.6-Flash74.3%
- Claude Sonnet 4.572.3%
- Gemma 4 31B69.7%
- Mistral Medium 3.569.3%
- gpt-oss-120b52%
- Llama 4 Maverick50%
- Llama 4 Scout27.7%
The other models in the grid have no result on AA-LCR v1.1 yet.
MultimodalMMMU-Pro
- Claude Opus 5.587.7%
- GPT-6 Astra86.9%
- GPT-6.1 Sol86%
- Gemini 3.8 Flash85.6%
- Claude Opus 584.7%
- GPT-6.1 Terra84.7%
- Kimi K3.1 Pro83.9%
- GPT-5.6 Sol83.4%
- Gemini 3.6 Flash83.2%
- GPT-6 Sol82.9%
- Qwen3.8 Max82.8%
- Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview82.4%
- Muse Spark 1.382%
- Muse Spark Open80.9%
- GPT-5.6 Terra80.7%
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash80.6%
- Kimi K380.5%
- Grok 4.580.4%
- GPT-5.579.9%
- GPT-6 Luna79.7%
- MiniMax M3.1 Flash79.1%
- Claude Opus 4.778.8%
- GPT-5.6 Luna78.6%
- GPT-5.3-Codex78.5%
- GPT-5.478.4%
- Claude Sonnet 577.3%
- Step 5 Preview76.4%
- Qwen3.8 27B76.3%
- Claude Opus 4.675.4%
- Claude Opus 4.574%
- Gemma 4 31B73.4%
- Claude Sonnet 4.673.3%
- MiMo-V2.6-Flash73.1%
- Claude Sonnet 4.568.7%
- Mistral Medium 3.564.9%
- Llama 4 Maverick62.1%
- Claude Haiku 4.558.6%
- Llama 4 Scout52.9%
- Claude Fable 5.186.3%Moonshot AI's run
- GLM-5.3-Flash86%Vals.ai's run, MMMU-Pro
The other models in the grid have no result on MMMU-Pro yet.
FactualityAA-Omniscience Accuracy
- Claude Fable 5.168.4%
- Claude Opus 5.565.5%
- Claude Fable 565.4%
- GPT-6.1 Sol61.8%
- GPT-6 Astra61.6%
- Claude Opus 560.9%
- Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview54.9%
- GPT-6 Sol54.5%
- Claude Sonnet 5.551.5%
- Gemini 3.8 Flash50.5%
- Claude Opus 4.748.9%
- Kimi K3.1 Pro48.9%
- Claude Opus 4.848.8%
- Gemini 4 Argon48.3%
- GPT-6.1 Terra47.6%
- Claude Opus 4.647%
- Claude Opus 4.546.6%
- DeepSeek V4 Pro45.2%
- MiniMax M3.1 Flash45.1%
- Grok 4.742.7%
- GPT-5.6 Terra42.3%
- Muse Spark Open42%
- Claude Sonnet 4.640.9%
- Claude Sonnet 540.1%
- GPT-6 Luna39.6%
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash39.6%
- Muse Wonder38%
- Muse Spark 1.338%
- Step 5 Preview36.4%
- MiMo-V2.6-Pro34.8%
- Claude Haiku 5.534.7%
- Claude Sonnet 4.532.9%
- GLM-5.332.3%
- Qwen3.8 Max29.5%
- GLM-5.3-Flash28.2%
- MiMo-V2.6-Flash27.2%
- Ling 3.1 Flash26.5%
- Mistral Large 426%
- Mistral Medium 3.523%
- Claude Haiku 4.518%
- Qwen3.8 27B17.3%
- GPT-5.6 Sol69.7%Epoch AI's run, SimpleQA Verified
- Gemini 3.6 Flash66.2%Epoch AI's run, SimpleQA Verified
- GPT-5.563%Epoch AI's run, SimpleQA Verified
- Kimi K350.6%Epoch AI's run, SimpleQA Verified
- Grok 4.648.9%Epoch AI's run, SimpleQA Verified
- Grok 4.548.3%Epoch AI's run, SimpleQA Verified
- GPT-5.6 Luna41%Epoch AI's run, SimpleQA Verified
- Kimi K2.7 Code36.5%Epoch AI's run, SimpleQA Verified
- GLM-5.234.2%Epoch AI's run, SimpleQA Verified
- gpt-oss-120b16.8%OpenAI's own figure, SimpleQA
- Gemma 4 31B10.4%Epoch AI's run, SimpleQA Verified
The other models in the grid have no result on AA-Omniscience Accuracy yet.
Answers in fullSpeechMap
- Grok 4.593.1%
- Gemini 3.6 Flash87.2%
- Gemini 4 Argon87%
- Gemini 3.8 Flash86.1%
- Grok 4.683.6%
- Claude Opus 5.582.8%
- Gemma 4 31B82.3%
- Claude Sonnet 5.581.6%
- Claude Haiku 5.578.8%
- Claude Opus 573.7%
- Claude Fable 5.172.4%
- DeepSeek V4 Pro72%
- GLM-5.371.5%
- Mistral Medium 3.570.5%
- Claude Opus 4.770.2%
- Llama 4 Scout70.1%
- GPT-6.1 Sol69.5%
- GPT-6 Astra68.2%
- Claude Opus 4.867.4%
- MiMo-V2.6-Flash66.9%
- MiMo-V2.6-Pro66.5%
- Kimi K365.9%
- GLM-5.3-Flash65.4%
- Qwen3.8 Max65.3%
- Claude Fable 564.8%
- Grok 4.764.1%
- GPT-6 Sol64%
- GPT-6 Luna63.4%
- Claude Opus 4.659.9%
- Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview59.9%
- Step 5 Preview59.7%
- Llama 4 Maverick58.3%
- Claude Opus 4.557.5%
- Muse Wonder42.7%
- gpt-oss-120b36.3%
- Claude Sonnet 4.635.8%
- Claude Sonnet 4.531.4%
- Muse Spark 1.325.8%
- Claude Haiku 4.524.7%
The other models in the grid have no result on SpeechMap yet.
Instruction followingMultiChallenge
- GPT-6.1 Sol82%
- Gemini 4 Argon78.7%
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash74.9%
- GPT-6.1 Terra74.2%
- Muse Spark Open74.2%
- Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview71.4%
- Claude Haiku 5.567.7%
- Claude Opus 4.559%
- Claude Sonnet 4.555.3%
- Claude Haiku 4.550.5%
- gpt-oss-120b45.3%
- Claude Opus 4.637.2%
- Qwen3.8 27B79.5%Alibaba's own figure, IFBench
- GPT-5.575.9%Artificial Analysis's run, IFBench
- Gemma 4 31B75.6%Artificial Analysis's run, IFBench
- GPT-5.3-Codex75.4%Artificial Analysis's run, IFBench
- GPT-5.473.9%Artificial Analysis's run, IFBench
- GLM-5.273.3%Artificial Analysis's run, IFBench
- GPT-5.6 Sol72.7%Artificial Analysis's run, IFBench
- GPT-5.6 Terra71.2%Artificial Analysis's run, IFBench
- Mistral Medium 3.568.8%Artificial Analysis's run, IFBench
- Claude Fable 563.5%Artificial Analysis's run, IFBench
- Kimi K2.7 Code63.1%Artificial Analysis's run, IFBench
- Claude Opus 4.862.2%Artificial Analysis's run, IFBench
- Claude Opus 4.758.6%Artificial Analysis's run, IFBench
- Claude Sonnet 4.656.6%Artificial Analysis's run, IFBench
- Llama 4 Maverick43%Artificial Analysis's run, IFBench
- Llama 4 Scout39.5%Artificial Analysis's run, IFBench
The other models in the grid have no result on MultiChallenge yet.
Every measure on record
Cost, speed, reliability, knowledge-work and domain results for GLM-5.2 beyond the twelve chart axes, each with the run it comes from and its publisher. These stay separate measures; none is folded into the chart.
| Measure | GLM-5.2 | Run | Source | Read |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Specs and access | ||||
| Context windowThe most tokens one request can hold, as the maker states it. Size alone says nothing about how well the model uses a long input; the Long context axis measures that. | 1.05M | OpenRouter | Oct 29, 2026 | |
| Max outputThe most tokens the model writes in one response. | 944K | no Z.ai figure in the stored maker sources; OpenRouter lists 943,718 | OpenRouter | Oct 29, 2026 |
| LicenceThe terms the weights or the service are offered under. | MIT | Z.ai | Nov 1, 2026 | |
| Open weightsWhether the maker publishes the weights for anyone to run. | Yes | 282 weight files in Z.ai's Hugging Face repository | Z.ai | Nov 1, 2026 |
| Routes offering itOf the 19 clouds, gateways and coding products GILD tracks, how many offer the release today, preview included. | 7 of 19 | GILD route matrix | Oct 29, 2026 | |
| Speed | ||||
| Time to first tokenLower is better. Median seconds to the first streamed chunk on AA's API runs, with the 5th and 95th percentile when AA prints them. Reasoning models spend this time thinking. | 1.8 s | Artificial Analysis | Oct 31, 2026 | |
| Output speedMedian output tokens per second on AA's API runs, with the 5th and 95th percentile when AA prints them. | 80 tokens/s | Artificial Analysis | Oct 31, 2026 | |
Routes, prices and uptime
Where GLM-5.2 is offered, what each route charges, and how each endpoint is holding up.
Where it is offered
7 of 19 routes GILD tracks offer GLM-5.2 today, preview included. Read Oct 29, 2026 from each route's own pages.
| Route | Status | Model ID | Limits and lifecycle | Sources |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cursor | Available | not statedpicker label GLM 5.2 | Hidden by default; US$1.40 input, US$0.26 cache read, US$4.40 output | Cursor |
| Databricks | Available | databricks-glm-5-2 | Model service name system.ai.glm-5-2; Databricks marks it a legacy model, no longer recommended for new workloads | Databricks |
| The maker's own API | Available | glm-5.2 | Text input only; 1M context, 128K output; US$1.40 input, US$0.26 cached input, US$4.40 output | Z.ai, GLM-5.2 overviewZ.ai, Z.ai pricing |
| GitHub Models | Retired | not applicableservice retired | service retired July 30, 2026 | GitHub |
| Google Cloud Vertex / Agent Platform (Google managed) | Available | not statedModel Garden page GLM 5.2 | Listed in Google's ZAI.org partner models | Google Cloud |
| OpenCode | Available | glm-5.2 | OpenCode Zen and OpenCode Go | OpenCode, ModelsOpenCode, Go |
| OpenRouter | Available | z-ai/glm-5.2 | 1,048,576 context for the model; top provider 943,718 output | OpenRouter |
| Windsurf / Devin | Available | glm-5-2-noneglm-5-2glm-5-2-maxglm-5-2-1mglm-5-2-max-1m | Pro and Enterprise tiers; No Thinking, High and Max, each with a 1M variant | Cognition |
Not offered on 6 routes: Amazon Bedrock, Antigravity, Claude on Google Cloud (Anthropic managed), Claude Platform on AWS, GitHub Copilot and Snowflake Cortex.
5 routes do not say: Claude Code, Codex, Gemini CLI, Grok Build and Microsoft Foundry.
What each of these 11 routes' pages say, with sources
| Route | Status | Model ID | Limits and lifecycle | Sources |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Amazon Bedrock | Not offered | Bedrock lists GLM 4.7, GLM 4.7 Flash, GLM 5 and GLM 5.3; GLM-5.2 isn't among them | Amazon Web Services | |
| Antigravity | Not offered | Antigravity lists Gemini, Claude and GPT-OSS models only | ||
| Claude on Google Cloud (Anthropic managed) | Not offered | Takes the Claude API's model IDs, which name Anthropic's Claude models only | Anthropic, Claude Models on Google Cloud (Anthropic managed)Anthropic, Models overview | |
| Claude Platform on AWS | Not offered | Claude Platform on AWS lists Anthropic's Claude models only | Anthropic | |
| GitHub Copilot | Not offered | Absent from the Copilot supported-models table, which lists each supported model | GitHub | |
| Snowflake Cortex | Not offered | Cortex lists glm-5.3, and GLM-5.2 doesn't appear | Snowflake | |
| Claude Code | Not stated | No vendor documents GLM-5.2 in Claude Code; Z.ai's Claude Code guide sets glm-5.3 and glm-5.3-flash | Anthropic | |
| Codex | Not stated | Z.ai's Codex guide declares glm-5.3 only; OpenAI documents no other maker's model | Z.aiOpenAI | |
| Gemini CLI | Not stated | Gemini CLI's model page names Gemini models only | ||
| Grok Build | Not stated | Grok Build names only grok-4.7; its docs say it supports any custom model added to its config file | xAI (SpaceXSI), Grok Build: SpaceXSI's Coding AgentxAI (SpaceXSI), Bring Grok to | |
| Microsoft Foundry | Not stated | Foundry's sold-directly page names no Z.ai model; its other collections come from Cohere, DeepSeek, Meta, Mistral AI and xAI | Microsoft |
Prices by route
The lowest standard rate is Morph (fp8) through OpenRouter, at $0.086 / $1.40 per million input and output tokens. US dollars per million tokens, as each route lists them, one row per route and rate plan, cheapest standard rate first after the maker's own; a blended rate states its mix. OpenRouter's endpoints follow under one heading, each with its monitor's uptime over 1 day and 30 minutes and the context and output it serves.
| Route | Standard, in / out | Cache read | Other rates | Source, or uptime (1 day / 30 min) and limits |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Z.ai APIMaker | $1.40 / $4.40 | Z.ai, Oct 31, 2026 | ||
| OpenRouter | $0.006 / $7 | $0.005 | OpenRouter, Oct 29, 2026 | |
| Through OpenRouter, 34 provider endpoints. OpenRouter, Oct 31, 2026 | ||||
| Morph (fp8)Lowest | $0.086 / $1.40 | $0.069 | Up 100% / 100%1.05M context, 944K output | |
| StreamLake (fp8)60.32% discount included | $0.56 / $1.75 | $0.1 | Up 100% / 100%1.02M context, 128K output | |
| DeepInfra (fp4)25% discount included | $0.56 / $1.80 | $0.1 | Up 99.9% / 100%1.05M context, 164K output | |
| Ambient (fp8) | $0.6 / $2 | $0.15 | Up 94.5% / 100%203K context, 182K output | |
| Novita (fp8)53.6% discount included | $0.65 / $2.04 | $0.12 | Up 100% / 100%1.05M context, 131K output | |
| CoreWeave (fp4) | $0.62 / $2.42 | $0.14 | Up 99.8% / 100%1.05M context, 944K output | |
| DigitalOcean | $0.7 / $2.20 | $0.1 | Up 99.7% / 100%1.05M context, 131K output | |
| SiliconFlow (fp8)50% discount included | $0.7 / $2.20 | $0.13 | Up 100% / 100%1.05M context, 262K output | |
| AtlasCloud (fp8)33% discount included | $0.94 / $2.95 | $0.17 | Up 100%1.05M context, 131K output | |
| Alibaba (fp8) | $0.97 / $3.04 | $0.19 | Up 99.6% / 100%1M context, 131K output | |
| Alibaba (fp8, us-east-1) | $1.12 / $3.52 | $0.22 | Up 100%1M context, 131K output | |
| Wafer (us) | $0.006 / $7 | $0.005 | Up 100% / 100%1.05M context, 944K output | |
| Relace (fp4) | $0.0065 / $7.91 | $0.0065 | Up 100% / 100%1.05M context, 131K output | |
| Cloudflare | $0.19 / $8 | $0.19 | Up 100% / 100%262K context, 236K output | |
| Wafer | $0.19 / $8 | $0.18 | Up 99.9% / 100%1.05M context, 944K output | |
| Baidu (fp8) | $1.40 / $4.40 | $0.26 | Up 99.9% / 100%1.05M context, 131K output | |
| BaseTen (fp8, us) | $1.40 / $4.40 | $0.14 | Up 99.1% / 100%1.05M context, 262K output | |
| BaseTen (fp8) | $1.40 / $4.40 | $0.14 | Up 99.0% / 100%1.05M context, 262K output | |
| Friendli | $1.40 / $4.40 | $0.26 | Up 100% / 100%1.05M context, 944K output | |
| GMICloud (fp8) | $1.40 / $4.40 | $0.26 | Up 100%1.05M context, 944K output | |
| Inceptron (fp4) | $1.40 / $4.40 | $0.16 | Up 99.8% / 100%1.05M context, 944K output | |
| Mistral (zdr) | $1.40 / $4.40 | $0.14 | Up 97.8% / 100%1.05M context, 131K output | |
| Nebius (fp4) | $1.40 / $4.40 | $0.14 | Up 56.0%1.05M context, 944K output | |
| Parasail (fp4) | $1.40 / $4.40 | $0.26 | Up 99.4% / 100%262K context, 236K output | |
| Together | $1.40 / $4.40 | $0.26 | Up 99.3% / 100%1.05M context, 944K output | |
| Venice (fp8) | $1.40 / $4.40 | $0.26 | Up 100% / 100%1M context, 131K output | |
| Z.AI (fp8) | $1.40 / $4.40 | $0.26 | Up 100% / 100%1.05M context, 131K output | |
| Mistral (eu) | $1.54 / $4.84 | $0.15 | Up 100% / 100%1.05M context, 128K output | |
| Alibaba (fast, priority) | Cache read $0.46, priority tierPriority $2.31 / $7.26, priority tier | Up 98.3%1M context, 131K output | ||
| Baidu (fast, priority) | Cache read $0.56, priority tierPriority $2.25 / $7.88, priority tier | Up 100% / 100%1.05M context, 131K output | ||
| BaseTen (fast, priority) | Cache read $0.21, priority tierPriority $2.10 / $6.60, priority tier | Up 99.6% / 100%1.05M context, 262K output | ||
| BaseTen (us, fast, priority) | Cache read $0.21, priority tierPriority $2.10 / $6.60, priority tier | Up 99.8% / 100%1.05M context, 262K output | ||
| Decart (fast, priority) | Cache read $0.48, priority tierPriority $1.20 / $8, priority tier | Up 7.6% / 0%1.05M context, 944K output | ||
| DeepInfra (fp4, flex) | Cache read $0.084, flex tier, 25% discount includedFlex $0.45 / $1.44, flex tier, 25% discount included | Up 100%1.05M context, 164K output | ||
Lineup
Z.ai's 3 releases in 1 family, oldest to newest along each tier, with list price and speed. GLM-5.2 is lit.
CurrentLegacyThis model
Price is the list price per 1M tokens, input / output. Speed is median output tokens per second. Bars share one scale across the lineup. Read between Oct 28, 2026 and Oct 31, 2026.
GLM
Z.ai's GLM family of open-weight models for coding, agents, and reasoning.
3 releases
- This page5.2Current. In 2 products we coverPrice$1.40 / $4.40Speed80.3 tok/s
- 5.3Current. In 3 products we coverPrice$1.40 / $4.40Speed85.7 tok/s
- 5.3-FlashCurrent. In 2 products we coverPrice$0.15 / $0.50Speed70.5 tok/s
Where it fits
The layers of Agentic Software Development that GLM-5.2 can power. A product supplies the rest.
Product & Engineering, Software Development
Agentic Software Development
- Primary role
- Foundation Model / Reasoning Engine
GLM-5.2 can power coding, reasoning, and validation work inside an agentic software-development product. The Model does not itself provide the surrounding interface, execution environment, or system of record.
- Supporting
Work planning & task decomposition
The Model can assist with work planning & task decomposition when a Product supplies the necessary context and tools.
- Supporting
Codebase context & intelligence
The Model can assist with codebase context & intelligence when a Product supplies the necessary context and tools.
- Supporting
Coding & implementation
The Model can assist with coding & implementation when a Product supplies the necessary context and tools.
- Supporting
Debugging & investigation
The Model can assist with debugging & investigation when a Product supplies the necessary context and tools.
- Supporting
Testing & verification
The Model can assist with testing & verification when a Product supplies the necessary context and tools.
- Supporting
Code review & quality
The Model can assist with code review & quality when a Product supplies the necessary context and tools.
Products
We cover 2 products that offer GLM-5.2 today, all subscriptions.
Through a subscription
- OpenCode+27 PositiveOpen-source, MIT-licensed coding agent that edits code and runs commands from a terminal UI, desktop app, web client, or editor extension.
- Cursor+11 MixedAI coding agent and code editor for writing, reviewing, and shipping software, with agents in the editor, the terminal, and the cloud.
Plan access as each vendor's page states it: Anomaly (Oct 28, 2026).
What practitioners report
GLM-5.2 has enough accounts to score 2 of 7 axes so far.
Each figure is the share of accounts naming GLM-5.2 that speak well of it on that axis. An axis is scored once praise and concerns are both on record from at least five accounts by three authors. An account from the maker, a company that sells or serves the model, or the maker's expert program is listed and counts toward no figure.
| Axis | Favorable | Accounts |
|---|---|---|
| Quality and reasoningWhether its answers and code are right on the author's own task: reasoning, accuracy, instruction following, and consistency. | 71% | 5 favorable, 2 not, 7 authors |
| Tool use and structured outputWhether it calls tools correctly, returns valid structured output, and keeps agent loops on track. | No accounts yet | None yet |
| Long contextHow it holds up over long documents, large codebases, long sessions, and many images or PDFs. | No accounts yet | None yet |
| Developer experienceHow it is to build with: prompting, steering, effort settings, and support across SDKs and providers. | No accounts yet | None yet |
| CostWhat the work costs: price per task, token use, and what caching and batch save. | 71% | 5 favorable, 2 not, 7 authors |
| SpeedResponse time, time to first token, and throughput. | Needs 5 accounts from 3 authors | 1 favorable, 1 not, 2 authors |
| ReliabilityWhether requests keep succeeding: overloaded errors, outages, rate limits, and changes that broke what worked. | Only concerns on record | 0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author |
Every model on these seven axes
| Axis | GLM-5.2 | GLM-5.3-Flash | GLM-5.3 | Claude Haiku 5.5 | Claude Sonnet 5.5 | Claude Opus 5.5 | Claude Fable 5.1 | Claude Opus 5 | Claude Sonnet 5 | Claude Fable 5 | Claude Opus 4.8 | Claude Opus 4.7 | Claude Sonnet 4.6 | Claude Opus 4.6 | Claude Opus 4.5 | Claude Haiku 4.5 | Claude Sonnet 4.5 | GPT-6.1 Terra | GPT-6.1 Sol | GPT-6 Luna | GPT-6 Astra | GPT-5.6 Sol | GPT-5.6 Terra | GPT-5.6 Luna | GPT-5.5 | GPT-5.4 | gpt-oss-120b | GPT-6 Sol | GPT-5.3-Codex | Gemini 4 Argon | Gemini 3.8 Flash | Gemma 4 31B | Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview | Gemini 3.6 Flash | DeepSeek V4.1 Flash | DeepSeek V4 Pro | Kimi K3.1 Pro | Kimi K3 | Kimi K2.7 Code | Mistral Large 4 | Mistral Medium 3.5 | Grok 4.7 | Grok 4.6 | Grok 4.5 | MiniMax M3.1 Flash | Mercury 3 | Muse Spark Open | Muse Wonder | Muse Spark 1.3 | Llama 4 Scout | Llama 4 Maverick | Qwen3.8 27B | Qwen3.8 Max | MiMo-V2.6-Pro | MiMo-V2.6-Flash | Ling 3.1 Flash | Step 5 Preview |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Quality and reasoning | 71%5 favorable, 2 not, 7 authors | 67%14 favorable, 7 not, 21 authors | 76%47 favorable, 15 not, 61 authors | 73%19 favorable, 7 not, 26 authors | 64%14 favorable, 8 not, 22 authors | 68%17 favorable, 8 not, 25 authors | 54%15 favorable, 13 not, 28 authors | 50%6 favorable, 6 not, 12 authors | 56%9 favorable, 7 not, 16 authors | 68%13 favorable, 6 not, 18 authors | 68%17 favorable, 8 not, 25 authors | 57%12 favorable, 9 not, 21 authors | 67%12 favorable, 6 not, 18 authors | 70%19 favorable, 8 not, 27 authors | 62%13 favorable, 8 not, 20 authors | 58%14 favorable, 10 not, 24 authors | 69%11 favorable, 5 not, 16 authors | 33%3 favorable, 6 not, 8 authors | 55%12 favorable, 10 not, 22 authors | 55%16 favorable, 13 not, 29 authors | 44%12 favorable, 15 not, 26 authors | 33%3 favorable, 6 not, 9 authors | 38%3 favorable, 5 not, 8 authors | Needs 5 accounts from 3 authors3 favorable, 1 not, 4 authors | 33%4 favorable, 8 not, 12 authors | 33%2 favorable, 4 not, 6 authors | 58%22 favorable, 16 not, 38 authors | 31%10 favorable, 22 not, 32 authors | Needs 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 3 not, 4 authors | 63%22 favorable, 13 not, 35 authors | 56%27 favorable, 21 not, 45 authors | 80%24 favorable, 6 not, 28 authors | 56%20 favorable, 16 not, 36 authors | Needs 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 3 not, 4 authors | 61%25 favorable, 16 not, 40 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 4 not, 4 authors | 59%20 favorable, 14 not, 32 authors | Only praise on record3 favorable, 0 not, 3 authors | 50%3 favorable, 3 not, 6 authors | 58%11 favorable, 8 not, 18 authors | 36%5 favorable, 9 not, 14 authors | 43%16 favorable, 21 not, 36 authors | 86%6 favorable, 1 not, 7 authors | 60%3 favorable, 2 not, 5 authors | 62%13 favorable, 8 not, 21 authors | 86%18 favorable, 3 not, 21 authors | Needs 5 accounts from 3 authors2 favorable, 1 not, 3 authors | 20%1 favorable, 4 not, 5 authors | Only praise on record2 favorable, 0 not, 2 authors | 53%8 favorable, 7 not, 15 authors | 44%8 favorable, 10 not, 17 authors | 71%24 favorable, 10 not, 34 authors | 57%4 favorable, 3 not, 7 authors | 22%2 favorable, 7 not, 9 authors | 40%4 favorable, 6 not, 10 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | Needs 5 accounts from 3 authors2 favorable, 1 not, 3 authors |
| Tool use and structured output | No accounts yet | 33%2 favorable, 4 not, 6 authors | 57%4 favorable, 3 not, 7 authors | 67%6 favorable, 3 not, 9 authors | 40%4 favorable, 6 not, 10 authors | 46%6 favorable, 7 not, 13 authors | 30%3 favorable, 7 not, 10 authors | Needs 5 accounts from 3 authors3 favorable, 1 not, 4 authors | 70%7 favorable, 3 not, 10 authors | 57%4 favorable, 3 not, 7 authors | 50%4 favorable, 4 not, 8 authors | 50%4 favorable, 4 not, 8 authors | 29%2 favorable, 5 not, 7 authors | 33%4 favorable, 8 not, 12 authors | 70%7 favorable, 3 not, 10 authors | 43%3 favorable, 4 not, 6 authors | 50%3 favorable, 3 not, 6 authors | 40%2 favorable, 3 not, 5 authors | 40%4 favorable, 6 not, 10 authors | 33%3 favorable, 6 not, 9 authors | 62%8 favorable, 5 not, 13 authors | No accounts yet | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 2 not, 2 authors | Only praise on record1 favorable, 0 not, 1 author | Only praise on record1 favorable, 0 not, 1 author | No accounts yet | 27%4 favorable, 11 not, 15 authors | 56%5 favorable, 4 not, 9 authors | No accounts yet | 25%2 favorable, 6 not, 8 authors | 47%7 favorable, 8 not, 15 authors | 67%4 favorable, 2 not, 6 authors | 54%7 favorable, 6 not, 12 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | 59%10 favorable, 7 not, 17 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | Needs 5 accounts from 3 authors3 favorable, 1 not, 4 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | No accounts yet | 38%5 favorable, 8 not, 13 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 5 not, 5 authors | 38%6 favorable, 10 not, 16 authors | Only praise on record2 favorable, 0 not, 2 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | 67%4 favorable, 2 not, 6 authors | 80%8 favorable, 2 not, 10 authors | No accounts yet | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | Needs 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 1 not, 2 authors | Needs 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 2 not, 3 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 4 not, 4 authors | 46%6 favorable, 7 not, 13 authors | Only praise on record1 favorable, 0 not, 1 author | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 5 not, 5 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author |
| Long context | No accounts yet | No accounts yet | 40%2 favorable, 3 not, 5 authors | 29%2 favorable, 5 not, 7 authors | 60%3 favorable, 2 not, 5 authors | 80%8 favorable, 2 not, 10 authors | 63%5 favorable, 3 not, 8 authors | 67%4 favorable, 2 not, 6 authors | 50%3 favorable, 3 not, 6 authors | 33%2 favorable, 4 not, 6 authors | 60%6 favorable, 4 not, 10 authors | 50%4 favorable, 4 not, 7 authors | 71%5 favorable, 2 not, 7 authors | 64%7 favorable, 4 not, 11 authors | 40%4 favorable, 6 not, 10 authors | 40%2 favorable, 3 not, 5 authors | 50%4 favorable, 4 not, 8 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | 38%3 favorable, 5 not, 8 authors | 20%1 favorable, 4 not, 5 authors | 27%3 favorable, 8 not, 11 authors | No accounts yet | No accounts yet | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | Needs 5 accounts from 3 authors2 favorable, 1 not, 3 authors | 25%2 favorable, 6 not, 8 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 3 not, 3 authors | No accounts yet | 25%2 favorable, 6 not, 8 authors | 38%5 favorable, 8 not, 13 authors | 20%1 favorable, 4 not, 5 authors | 44%7 favorable, 9 not, 16 authors | Only praise on record1 favorable, 0 not, 1 author | 58%7 favorable, 5 not, 12 authors | No accounts yet | Needs 5 accounts from 3 authors3 favorable, 1 not, 4 authors | Only praise on record1 favorable, 0 not, 1 author | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | Needs 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 3 not, 4 authors | No accounts yet | 42%5 favorable, 7 not, 12 authors | No accounts yet | No accounts yet | 40%2 favorable, 3 not, 5 authors | 60%3 favorable, 2 not, 5 authors | No accounts yet | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 3 not, 3 authors | Needs 5 accounts from 3 authors2 favorable, 1 not, 3 authors | 75%6 favorable, 2 not, 8 authors | Only praise on record1 favorable, 0 not, 1 author | Needs 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 1 not, 2 authors | Needs 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 1 not, 2 authors | No accounts yet | No accounts yet |
| Developer experience | No accounts yet | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 3 not, 3 authors | 33%5 favorable, 10 not, 15 authors | 25%2 favorable, 6 not, 8 authors | 38%5 favorable, 8 not, 13 authors | 38%6 favorable, 10 not, 16 authors | 50%7 favorable, 7 not, 14 authors | 25%3 favorable, 9 not, 12 authors | 29%2 favorable, 5 not, 7 authors | 25%3 favorable, 9 not, 12 authors | 53%10 favorable, 9 not, 19 authors | 29%4 favorable, 10 not, 14 authors | 57%4 favorable, 3 not, 7 authors | 45%5 favorable, 6 not, 11 authors | 67%8 favorable, 4 not, 12 authors | Needs 5 accounts from 3 authors2 favorable, 2 not, 4 authors | 50%3 favorable, 3 not, 6 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 2 not, 2 authors | 27%3 favorable, 8 not, 11 authors | 25%2 favorable, 6 not, 8 authors | 41%7 favorable, 10 not, 17 authors | No accounts yet | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | No accounts yet | No accounts yet | No accounts yet | 14%1 favorable, 6 not, 7 authors | 25%3 favorable, 9 not, 12 authors | No accounts yet | 33%3 favorable, 6 not, 9 authors | 39%7 favorable, 11 not, 17 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 7 not, 7 authors | 40%8 favorable, 12 not, 20 authors | No accounts yet | 35%8 favorable, 15 not, 23 authors | No accounts yet | 9%1 favorable, 10 not, 11 authors | No accounts yet | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | 13%2 favorable, 14 not, 16 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 9 not, 9 authors | 25%5 favorable, 15 not, 20 authors | No accounts yet | No accounts yet | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 7 not, 7 authors | 11%1 favorable, 8 not, 9 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | No accounts yet | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 6 not, 6 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | 17%1 favorable, 5 not, 6 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | No accounts yet | No accounts yet |
| Cost | 71%5 favorable, 2 not, 7 authors | 76%16 favorable, 5 not, 21 authors | 35%8 favorable, 15 not, 23 authors | 69%20 favorable, 9 not, 29 authors | 45%10 favorable, 12 not, 22 authors | 56%15 favorable, 12 not, 27 authors | 20%4 favorable, 16 not, 20 authors | 43%3 favorable, 4 not, 7 authors | 39%7 favorable, 11 not, 17 authors | 8%1 favorable, 11 not, 12 authors | 40%6 favorable, 9 not, 14 authors | 50%7 favorable, 7 not, 13 authors | 50%6 favorable, 6 not, 12 authors | 33%7 favorable, 14 not, 20 authors | 53%8 favorable, 7 not, 15 authors | 29%4 favorable, 10 not, 12 authors | 38%3 favorable, 5 not, 8 authors | 80%8 favorable, 2 not, 9 authors | 74%14 favorable, 5 not, 19 authors | 79%22 favorable, 6 not, 26 authors | 29%7 favorable, 17 not, 23 authors | 57%4 favorable, 3 not, 7 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | 50%3 favorable, 3 not, 6 authors | Needs 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 3 not, 4 authors | 63%5 favorable, 3 not, 8 authors | 60%3 favorable, 2 not, 5 authors | 55%12 favorable, 10 not, 21 authors | Needs 5 accounts from 3 authors2 favorable, 1 not, 3 authors | 35%7 favorable, 13 not, 20 authors | 58%14 favorable, 10 not, 23 authors | Only praise on record7 favorable, 0 not, 7 authors | 50%8 favorable, 8 not, 16 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | 66%25 favorable, 13 not, 37 authors | Only praise on record2 favorable, 0 not, 2 authors | 40%10 favorable, 15 not, 25 authors | 71%5 favorable, 2 not, 7 authors | Needs 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 3 not, 4 authors | 27%3 favorable, 8 not, 11 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 8 not, 8 authors | 19%5 favorable, 21 not, 26 authors | 20%1 favorable, 4 not, 5 authors | Only praise on record4 favorable, 0 not, 4 authors | 80%12 favorable, 3 not, 15 authors | 50%6 favorable, 6 not, 12 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 9 not, 9 authors | Needs 5 accounts from 3 authors2 favorable, 1 not, 3 authors | Only praise on record1 favorable, 0 not, 1 author | Only praise on record1 favorable, 0 not, 1 author | Needs 5 accounts from 3 authors2 favorable, 2 not, 4 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 2 not, 2 authors | Needs 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 1 not, 2 authors | Only praise on record3 favorable, 0 not, 3 authors | Only praise on record1 favorable, 0 not, 1 author | Only praise on record1 favorable, 0 not, 1 author |
| Speed | Needs 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 1 not, 2 authors | 33%3 favorable, 6 not, 9 authors | 20%3 favorable, 12 not, 15 authors | 74%14 favorable, 5 not, 19 authors | 88%14 favorable, 2 not, 16 authors | 46%6 favorable, 7 not, 13 authors | 44%4 favorable, 5 not, 9 authors | 60%3 favorable, 2 not, 5 authors | 44%4 favorable, 5 not, 9 authors | 57%4 favorable, 3 not, 7 authors | 31%4 favorable, 9 not, 13 authors | 63%5 favorable, 3 not, 8 authors | 17%1 favorable, 5 not, 6 authors | 36%4 favorable, 7 not, 11 authors | 73%8 favorable, 3 not, 11 authors | 78%7 favorable, 2 not, 9 authors | 75%6 favorable, 2 not, 8 authors | 83%5 favorable, 1 not, 5 authors | 37%7 favorable, 12 not, 19 authors | 45%5 favorable, 6 not, 11 authors | 41%7 favorable, 10 not, 17 authors | Only praise on record1 favorable, 0 not, 1 author | Needs 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 1 not, 2 authors | 80%4 favorable, 1 not, 5 authors | Needs 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 1 not, 2 authors | No accounts yet | 85%23 favorable, 4 not, 27 authors | 57%4 favorable, 3 not, 7 authors | Only praise on record1 favorable, 0 not, 1 author | 45%5 favorable, 6 not, 11 authors | 61%19 favorable, 12 not, 31 authors | 53%10 favorable, 9 not, 17 authors | 35%6 favorable, 11 not, 16 authors | Needs 5 accounts from 3 authors2 favorable, 1 not, 3 authors | 68%21 favorable, 10 not, 30 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | 21%4 favorable, 15 not, 19 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 2 not, 2 authors | No accounts yet | 21%3 favorable, 11 not, 14 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 2 not, 2 authors | 29%5 favorable, 12 not, 17 authors | Needs 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 2 not, 3 authors | Only praise on record2 favorable, 0 not, 2 authors | 44%4 favorable, 5 not, 9 authors | 65%13 favorable, 7 not, 20 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | Needs 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 1 not, 2 authors | Needs 5 accounts from 3 authors3 favorable, 1 not, 4 authors | No accounts yet | 33%7 favorable, 14 not, 21 authors | Needs 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 3 not, 4 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 4 not, 4 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 2 not, 2 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author |
| Reliability | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 7 not, 7 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 4 not, 4 authors | 20%1 favorable, 4 not, 5 authors | 18%2 favorable, 9 not, 11 authors | 13%1 favorable, 7 not, 8 authors | 9%1 favorable, 10 not, 11 authors | 13%1 favorable, 7 not, 8 authors | 63%5 favorable, 3 not, 7 authors | 22%2 favorable, 7 not, 9 authors | 17%2 favorable, 10 not, 12 authors | 18%2 favorable, 9 not, 11 authors | 17%1 favorable, 5 not, 6 authors | 20%3 favorable, 12 not, 15 authors | 38%6 favorable, 10 not, 16 authors | 29%2 favorable, 5 not, 7 authors | 40%4 favorable, 6 not, 10 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | 13%1 favorable, 7 not, 8 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 5 not, 5 authors | 14%2 favorable, 12 not, 14 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 4 not, 4 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | No accounts yet | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 2 not, 2 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 4 not, 4 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 4 not, 4 authors | 17%1 favorable, 5 not, 6 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 3 not, 3 authors | 5%1 favorable, 18 not, 19 authors | 15%3 favorable, 17 not, 20 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 5 not, 5 authors | 14%3 favorable, 19 not, 22 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | 42%5 favorable, 7 not, 12 authors | Needs 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 1 not, 2 authors | 8%1 favorable, 12 not, 13 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | Needs 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 1 not, 2 authors | 38%3 favorable, 5 not, 8 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 4 not, 4 authors | 22%2 favorable, 7 not, 9 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | No accounts yet | 60%3 favorable, 2 not, 5 authors | 33%2 favorable, 4 not, 5 authors | No accounts yet | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 2 not, 2 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | Needs 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 3 not, 4 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 9 not, 9 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 2 not, 2 authors | No accounts yet | No accounts yet | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author |
The 13 accounts behind GLM-5.2's figures
GILD searched Hacker News, GitHub and Reddit for accounts that name GLM-5.2.
Quality and reasoning 71%
- Favorable
Only GLM 5.2 said "here's how to use cookies and also have tab-level separation". The difference vs the other models was very stark.
GLM-5.2 is a step change for open agents. JSR_FDED, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Jun 25, 2026. GLM 5.2 (GLM-5.2) in OpenCode with the Zen subscription, replacing a token-based auth scheme with cookies across a front and back end, against Deepseek, Kimi 2.6 and MiMo 2.5.
- Unfavorable
I had GPT 5.5 in Codex review it after it was done and there was plenty of slop to go around.
GLM-5.2 is the new leading open weights model on Artificial Analysis. cmrdporcupine, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Jun 17, 2026. GLM 5.2 (GLM-5.2) on OpenRouter for 30 minutes of coding work, reviewed afterwards by GPT 5.5 in Codex, against DeepSeek V4 and MiniMax M3.
- Favorable
Sonnet 5 is definitely better than Sonnet 4.6, but inferior on both quality and cost to GLM 5.1, GLM 5.2, Gemini 3.1 Flash, and Gemini 3.1 Pro.
Claude Sonnet 5. artursapek, Hacker News commenter who runs the revise.io errata-bench, self-described, Jun 30, 2026. GLM 5.2 (GLM-5.2) on the author's proofreading benchmark, finding and fixing errors in English text over several agent-loop passes, against Sonnet 5.
- Favorable
Implementation worked well, it was idiomatic and non-intrusive. I would even say that it was more idiomatic than GPT 5.5 effects on same repo.
GLM 5.2 vs. Opus. xlii, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Jun 22, 2026. GLM 5.2 (GLM-5.2) optimizing rendering in a Swift and Zig codebase that choked on 5k data entries, against GPT 5.5 on the same repo.
- Unfavorable
GLM 5.2 is nice and all, but I might have to spend half an hour guiding it to come up with a plan I'm happy with. And with Opus it could be 15 minutes.
GLM 5.2 beats Claude in our benchmarks. neongreen, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Jun 29, 2026. GLM 5.2 (GLM-5.2) planning work with the author, against Opus.
- Favorable
2 GLM 5.2 87/112 86 $0.58 3 12 7 0
I benchmarked Codex GPT-5.5 against Chinese models. Not what I expected, is 5.5 cooked ?. u/DaC2k26, r/codex poster building a 165-milestone app, self-described, Jun 17, 2026. GLM 5.2 (GLM-5.2) on one code review task (milestone M58) of the author's app, against Kimi 2.7 Code, GPT-5.5 and 12 other models on the same prompt.
- Favorable
I tell it to fix this, this and this. It goes on to fix it... Although it takes quite a time since I'm using a subscription based, but it did fix everything.
After the horrendous nerf of this week, I tried GLM 5.2. u/Artium99, r/codex poster on a subscription plan, self-described, Jun 19, 2026. GLM 5.2 (GLM-5.2) on a subscription plan, fixing the author's listed bugs and UI issues after GPT-5.5 in Codex stopped doing so.
Cost 71%
- Unfavorable
it racked up $5 in token use in 30 minutes of (relatively slow) work. It's easily 4x the cost of DeepSeek V4
GLM-5.2 is the new leading open weights model on Artificial Analysis. cmrdporcupine, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Jun 17, 2026. GLM 5.2 (GLM-5.2) on OpenRouter for 30 minutes of coding work, reviewed afterwards by GPT 5.5 in Codex, against DeepSeek V4 and MiniMax M3.
- Unfavorable
Even with cheaper prices per 1M tokens, the cost ends up being higher, in some cases 2x.
GLM-5.3 is now open-weight. armcat, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Aug 28, 2026. GLM 5.2 (GLM-5.2) on the author's team's highly complex data analysis workloads, against Opus and GPT models.
- Favorable
I am usually running 2 to 4 sessions concurrently, and I never hit quota limits. At work I get Claude, and I was getting reports that I was spending $75 per hour of work on Opus.
Open-weight AI is having its Kubernetes moment. rglullis, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Jul 25, 2026. GLM-5.2 via Ollama Cloud on the $20 a month plan, behind OpenWebUI, opencode and pi sessions.
- Favorable
inferior on both quality and cost to GLM 5.1, GLM 5.2, Gemini 3.1 Flash, and Gemini 3.1 Pro.
Claude Sonnet 5. artursapek, Hacker News commenter who runs the revise.io errata-bench, self-described, Jun 30, 2026. GLM 5.2 (GLM-5.2) on the author's proofreading benchmark, finding and fixing errors in English text over several agent-loop passes, against Sonnet 5.
- Favorable
I spend maybe $0.20-$0.50 per task that I work on expanding the app where Claude sonnet will come out to $1-2 for the same work, and Claude Opus $5-10
Kimi K3 is now #1 in the Front end Code Arena with 1679 pts, surpassing Fable 5. KetoManx64, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Jul 17, 2026. GLM 5.2 (GLM-5.2) through OpenRouter on app development tasks, against Claude Sonnet and Claude Opus on the same work.
- Favorable
GPT-5.6 Sol cost about $108, while GLM-5.2 and Grok 4.5 each cost around $19.
Show HN: WorldBuild Bench repo: testing LLM world coherence with 3D games. sebnado, Hacker News poster and builder of WorldBuild Bench, self-described, Jul 21, 2026. GLM-5.2 in high-thinking mode on three 3D game briefs in WorldBuild Bench, against Fable, GPT-5.6 Sol, Grok 4.5, Opus and Kimi.
- Favorable
Kimi 2.7 Code 88/112 94 $1.68 4 12 7 0 2 GLM 5.2 87/112 86 $0.58
I benchmarked Codex GPT-5.5 against Chinese models. Not what I expected, is 5.5 cooked ?. u/DaC2k26, r/codex poster building a 165-milestone app, self-described, Jun 17, 2026. GLM 5.2 (GLM-5.2) on one code review task (milestone M58) of the author's app, against Kimi 2.7 Code, GPT-5.5 and 12 other models on the same prompt.
Speed Needs 5 accounts from 3 authors
- Unfavorable
I would opt in in using it more BUT GPT usually completes same requests 5x faster.
GLM 5.2 vs. Opus. xlii, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Jun 22, 2026. GLM 5.2 (GLM-5.2) optimizing rendering in a Swift and Zig codebase that choked on 5k data entries, against GPT 5.5 on the same repo.
- Favorable
GLM has been slightly faster for this particular workload so I've kept it for now.
Show HN: HN Hiring: Search and Filter Who Is Hiring. azuanrb, Hacker News poster and builder of HN Hiring, self-described, Aug 9, 2026. GLM 5.2 (GLM-5.2) with reasoning disabled, in sequential calls extracting structured job data for HN Hiring, against 5.6 Luna at medium.
Reliability Only concerns on record
- Unfavorable
Invalid status code: 429 Too Many Requests: {"error":{"code":"1308","message":"Usage limit reached for 5 hour.
Error: GLM 5.2 - 502. sanyoglilhare9699-eng, Continue user, GitHub issue author, self-described, Aug 27, 2026. GLM 5.2 (GLM-5.2) in Continue through a router with Z.ai and Ollama providers.
No published account yet for Tool use and structured output; Long context; Developer experience.