GLM-5.2 vs o3
Wins 6 of 7 areas
Coding · Agents · Reasoning · Math · Long documents · Following instructions
Wins 1 of 7 areas
Facts
GLM-5.2 is the stronger all-rounder.o3 is better at facts.
Scores updated · 21 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.
- ReasoningHard problems that need careful thinking50GLM-5.25 of 5 tests
- CodingWriting and fixing software20GLM-5.22 of 2 tests
- AgentsCarrying out multi-step tasks on its own10GLM-5.21 of 1 test
- MathCompetition and research-level math10GLM-5.21 of 1 test
- Long documentsFinding answers in very long texts10GLM-5.21 of 1 test
- Following instructionsDoing exactly what it is asked10GLM-5.21 of 1 test
- FactsGetting facts right instead of making them up12o32 of 3 tests
Agents, math, 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 42% less for the same work.
The biggest differences
The tests each model wins by the widest margin, up to three each. Scores are out of 100.
Where GLM-5.2 pulls ahead
- Avoids making up answers it doesn't knowAA-Omniscience · Non-hallucination+61.8points ahead
- Real work tasks from 44 professionsGDPVal+30.9points ahead
- Unpublished advanced math problemsFrontierMath Tiers 1-3 (v2)+25.9points ahead
Where o3 pulls ahead
- Short factual questions, answered correctlySimpleQA Verified+15.2points ahead
- Answers hard knowledge questions correctlyAA-Omniscience · Accuracy+14.3points ahead
Every test, side by side
All 21 tests both models report. The winning score is in its model's colour; marks a score checked independently.
CodingGLM-5.2
- Terminal-Bench HardGLM-5.2 by 13.750.837.1+13.7
- SciCodeGLM-5.2 by 10.251.241+10.2
ReasoningGLM-5.2
- Humanity's Last ExamGLM-5.2 by 2141.120.1+21
- CritPtGLM-5.2 by 19.820.91.1+19.8
- ARC-AGI-2GLM-5.2 by 16.322.86.5+16.3
- GPQA DiamondGLM-5.2 by 6.889.582.7+6.8
- SimpleBenchGLM-5.2 by 5.758.853.1+5.7
Factso3
- AA-Omniscience · Non-hallucinationGLM-5.2 by 61.873.711.9+61.8
- SimpleQA Verifiedo3 by 15.234.249.4+15.2
- AA-Omniscience · Accuracyo3 by 14.324.338.6+14.3
Other results7 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 30.468.838.4+30.4
- AA-OmniscienceGLM-5.2 by 19.94.4-15.6+19.9
- τ²-Bench Telecom (AA run)GLM-5.2 by 18.499.180.7+18.4
- ARC-AGI-1GLM-5.2 by 16.27760.8+16.2
- AA IntelligenceGLM-5.2 by 13.533.720.2+13.5
- AA Agentic IndexGLM-5.2 by 3.339.436.1+3.3
- StrongREJECTGLM-5.2 by 1.598.597+1.5
Questions people ask
Which is better, GLM-5.2 or o3?
GLM-5.2 wins six of the seven areas where both have results: coding, agents, reasoning, math, long documents and following instructions. o3 wins facts.
Which is better for coding?
GLM-5.2. It wins 2 of the 2 coding tests both models report; o3 wins none.
Which is cheaper?
GLM-5.2 costs $1.40 per million input tokens and $4.40 per million output tokens; o3 costs $2.00 and $8.00. That makes GLM-5.2 about 42% cheaper for the same work.
How do you compare the two?
We use the 21 benchmark tests both models have published scores on. The verdict counts the 14 tests in the eight capability areas, and a gap under one point (ten on rating-style scales) counts as a tie. The other 7 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.