GLM-5.2 vs Qwen3 VL 4B (Reasoning)
Wins 6 of 6 areas
Coding · Agents · Reasoning · Facts · Long documents · Following instructions
Wins 0 of 6 areas
—
GLM-5.2 is the stronger all-rounder.
Scores updated · 16 tests both models report · How we compare
Where each one wins
Tests won in each of the six 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 thinking30GLM-5.23 of 3 tests
- CodingWriting and fixing software20GLM-5.22 of 2 tests
- FactsGetting facts right instead of making them up20GLM-5.22 of 2 tests
- AgentsCarrying out multi-step tasks on its own10GLM-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
Agents, 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.
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+65.5points ahead
- Reasons across sets of long documentsAA-LCR+57points ahead
- Hard command-line tasks in a real terminalTerminal-Bench Hard+49.3points ahead
Where Qwen3 VL 4B (Reasoning) pulls ahead
No clear win on a test scored out of 100.
Every test, side by side
All 16 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 49.350.81.5+49.3
- SciCodeGLM-5.2 by 34.151.217.1+34.1
ReasoningGLM-5.2
- GPQA DiamondGLM-5.2 by 40.189.549.4+40.1
- Humanity's Last ExamGLM-5.2 by 36.541.14.6+36.5
- CritPtGLM-5.2 by 20.920.90+20.9
FactsGLM-5.2
- AA-Omniscience · Non-hallucinationGLM-5.2 by 65.573.78.2+65.5
- AA-Omniscience · AccuracyGLM-5.2 by 12.124.312.2+12.1
Other results6 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.
- τ²-Bench Telecom (AA run)GLM-5.2 by 83.699.115.5+83.6
- AA-OmniscienceGLM-5.2 by 72.84.4-68.4+72.8
- Artificial Analysis Coding IndexGLM-5.2 by 62.168.86.7+62.1
- HMMT 2025GLM-5.2 by 41.394.453.1+41.3
- AA IntelligenceGLM-5.2 by 26.733.77+26.7
- AA Agentic IndexGLM-5.2 by 2539.414.4+25
Questions people ask
Which is better, GLM-5.2 or Qwen3 VL 4B (Reasoning)?
GLM-5.2 wins all six areas where both have results: coding, agents, reasoning, facts, long documents and following instructions. Qwen3 VL 4B (Reasoning) wins none.
Which is better for coding?
GLM-5.2. It wins 2 of the 2 coding tests both models report; Qwen3 VL 4B (Reasoning) wins none.
How do you compare the two?
We use the 16 benchmark tests both models have published scores on. The verdict counts the 10 tests in the eight capability areas, and a gap under one point (ten on rating-style scales) counts as a tie. The other 6 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.