Gemini 3 Pro vs GLM-5.2
Wins 2 of 7 areas
Reasoning · Facts
Wins 5 of 7 areas
Coding · Agents · Math · Long documents · Following instructions
GLM-5.2 is the stronger all-rounder.Gemini 3 Pro is better at reasoning.
Scores updated · 29 tests both models report · How we compare
Where each one wins
Tests won in each of the seven areas where both have results. Each piece is one test, so a longer bar means more evidence; grey means the two scored within a point of each other.
- AgentsCarrying out multi-step tasks on its own03GLM-5.23 of 3 tests
- MathCompetition and research-level math03GLM-5.23 of 3 tests
- CodingWriting and fixing software13GLM-5.23 of 4 tests
- Long documentsFinding answers in very long texts01GLM-5.21 of 1 test
- Following instructionsDoing exactly what it is asked01GLM-5.21 of 1 test
- ReasoningHard problems that need careful thinking32Gemini 3 Pro3 of 5 tests
- FactsGetting facts right instead of making them up21Gemini 3 Pro2 of 3 tests
Long documents and following instructions rest on a single test each.
What it costs
Prices per million tokens, roughly 750,000 words. The bars show the cost of a million tokens read plus a million written.
GLM-5.2 costs 59% less for the same work.
The biggest differences
The three tests each model wins by the widest margin. Scores are out of 100.
Where GLM-5.2 pulls ahead
- Avoids making up answers it doesn't knowAA-Omniscience · Non-hallucination+65.2points ahead
- Multi-step tasks using many real software toolsMCP Atlas+22.7points ahead
- Long, multi-file coding tasks in real codebasesSWE-bench Pro+18.8points ahead
Where Gemini 3 Pro pulls ahead
- Short factual questions, answered correctlySimpleQA Verified+38.7points ahead
- Answers hard knowledge questions correctlyAA-Omniscience · Accuracy+31.5points ahead
- Common-sense trick questionsSimpleBench+17.6points ahead
Every test, side by side
All 29 tests both models report. The winning score is in its model's colour; marks a score checked independently.
CodingGLM-5.2
- SWE-bench ProGLM-5.2 by 18.843.362.1+18.8
- LMArena · WebDevGLM-5.2 by 166 rating points14391605+166 rating
- Terminal-Bench HardGLM-5.2 by 9.141.750.8+9.1
- SciCodeGemini 3 Pro by 4.956.151.2+4.9
AgentsGLM-5.2
- MCP AtlasGLM-5.2 by 22.754.176.8+22.7
- AA ApexAgentsGLM-5.2 by 15.318.433.7+15.3
- GDPValGLM-5.2 by 9.534.243.7+9.5
ReasoningGemini 3 Pro
- SimpleBenchGemini 3 Pro by 17.676.458.8+17.6
- CritPtGLM-5.2 by 11.89.120.9+11.8
- ARC-AGI-2Gemini 3 Pro by 8.331.122.8+8.3
- Humanity's Last ExamGLM-5.2 by 1.439.741.1+1.4
- GPQA DiamondGemini 3 Pro by 1.390.889.5+1.3
FactsGemini 3 Pro
- AA-Omniscience · Non-hallucinationGLM-5.2 by 65.28.573.7+65.2
- SimpleQA VerifiedGemini 3 Pro by 38.772.934.2+38.7
- AA-Omniscience · AccuracyGemini 3 Pro by 31.555.824.3+31.5
MathGLM-5.2
- IMOAnswerBenchGLM-5.2 by 7.983.191+7.9
- AIME 2026GLM-5.2 by 7.591.799.2+7.5
- HMMT Feb. 2026GLM-5.2 by 6.186.492.5+6.1
Other results9 tests, not counted
Tests outside the eight areas. They are not counted above: several are summary scores built from other tests, or the same test under another name.
- Artificial Analysis Coding IndexGLM-5.2 by 22.346.568.8+22.3
- AA Agentic IndexGemini 3 Pro by 12.65239.4+12.6
- τ²-Bench Telecom (AA run)GLM-5.2 by 1287.199.1+12
- ToolathlonGLM-5.2 by 11.836.448.2+11.8
- AA-OmniscienceGemini 3 Pro by 10.915.34.4+10.9
- HLE (with tools)GLM-5.2 by 8.945.854.7+8.9
- AA IntelligenceGLM-5.2 by 5.72833.7+5.7
- ARC-AGI-1GLM-5.2 by 27577+2
- HMMT Nov. 2025GLM-5.2 by 1.193.394.4+1.1
Questions people ask
Which is better, Gemini 3 Pro or GLM-5.2?
GLM-5.2 wins five of the seven areas where both have results: coding, agents, math, long documents and following instructions. Gemini 3 Pro wins reasoning and facts.
Which is better for coding?
GLM-5.2. It wins 3 of the 4 coding tests both models report; Gemini 3 Pro wins 1.
Which is cheaper?
Gemini 3 Pro costs $2.00 per million input tokens and $12.00 per million output tokens; GLM-5.2 costs $1.40 and $4.40. That makes GLM-5.2 about 59% cheaper for the same work.
How do you compare the two?
We use the 29 benchmark tests both models have published scores on. The verdict counts the 20 tests in the eight capability areas, and a gap under one point (ten on rating-style scales) counts as a tie. The other 9 are listed but not counted, because several are summary scores or repeat a test. Each score is the one shown on the model's own page.