GLM-5.3-Flash vs GPT-5.2
Wins 4 of 8 areas
Coding · Agents · Reasoning · Images and charts
Wins 4 of 8 areas
Facts · Math · Long documents · Following instructions
The two are evenly matched.GLM-5.3-Flash is better at coding and agents; GPT-5.2 at math and facts.
Scores updated · 32 tests both models report · How we compare
Where each one wins
Tests won in each of the eight areas we test. Each piece is one test, so a longer bar means more evidence; grey means the two scored within a point of each other.
- CodingWriting and fixing software30GLM-5.3-Flash3 of 4 tests · 1 tie
- AgentsCarrying out multi-step tasks on its own30GLM-5.3-Flash3 of 3 tests
- ReasoningHard problems that need careful thinking31GLM-5.3-Flash3 of 5 tests · 1 tie
- Images and chartsUnderstanding pictures, charts and video20GLM-5.3-Flash2 of 2 tests
- MathCompetition and research-level math03GPT-5.23 of 3 tests
- FactsGetting facts right instead of making them up12GPT-5.22 of 3 tests
- Long documentsFinding answers in very long texts01GPT-5.21 of 1 test
- Following instructionsDoing exactly what it is asked01GPT-5.21 of 1 test
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-5.3-Flash costs 96% 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-5.3-Flash pulls ahead
- Avoids making up answers it doesn't knowAA-Omniscience · Non-hallucination+53.6points ahead
- Customer-service tasks in a simulated bankτ-Bench V3 · Banking+36.1points ahead
- Abstract visual puzzles that people can solveARC-AGI-2+12.9points ahead
Where GPT-5.2 pulls ahead
- Answers hard knowledge questions correctlyAA-Omniscience · Accuracy+16.8points ahead
- Extremely hard research-level math problemsFrontierMath Tier 4+14.6points ahead
- Fresh competition math problemsLiveBench · Mathematics+12points ahead
Every test, side by side
All 32 tests both models report. The winning score is in its model's colour; marks a score checked independently.
CodingGLM-5.3-Flash
- LMArena · WebDevGLM-5.3-Flash by 188 rating points16091421+188 rating
- LiveBench · Agentic CodingGLM-5.3-Flash by 6.556.850.3+6.5
- LiveBench · CodingGLM-5.3-Flash by 2.97976.1+2.9
- SciCodetie51.652.1tie
AgentsGLM-5.3-Flash
- τ-Bench V3 · BankingGLM-5.3-Flash by 36.147.211.1+36.1
- BrowseCompGLM-5.3-Flash by 10.27665.8+10.2
- GDPValGLM-5.3-Flash by 8.957.248.3+8.9
ReasoningGLM-5.3-Flash
- ARC-AGI-2GLM-5.3-Flash by 12.965.852.9+12.9
- LiveBench · ReasoningGPT-5.2 by 5.677.683.2+5.6
- CritPtGLM-5.3-Flash by 3.815.411.6+3.8
- Humanity's Last ExamGLM-5.3-Flash by 2.239.937.7+2.2
- GPQA Diamondtie91.290.3tie
FactsGPT-5.2
- AA-Omniscience · Non-hallucinationGLM-5.3-Flash by 53.672.418.8+53.6
- AA-Omniscience · AccuracyGPT-5.2 by 16.827.544.3+16.8
- SimpleQA VerifiedGPT-5.2 by 5.13237.1+5.1
Images and chartsGLM-5.3-Flash
- CharXiv (RQ)GLM-5.3-Flash by 7.389.482.1+7.3
- LMArena · VisionGLM-5.3-Flash by 50 rating points12951245+50 rating
MathGPT-5.2
- FrontierMath Tier 4GPT-5.2 by 14.617.131.7+14.6
- LiveBench · MathematicsGPT-5.2 by 1281.293.2+12
- FrontierMath Tiers 1-3 (v2)GPT-5.2 by 11.655.867.4+11.6
Following instructionsGPT-5.2
- LiveBench · Instruction FollowingGPT-5.2 by 952.861.8+9
Other results10 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.
- ToolathlonGLM-5.3-Flash by 32.178.446.3+32.1
- Artificial Analysis Coding IndexGLM-5.3-Flash by 22.871.548.7+22.8
- DeepSearchQA (F1)GLM-5.3-Flash by 1384.371.3+13
- AA IntelligenceGLM-5.3-Flash by 11.441.830.4+11.4
- AA Agentic IndexGPT-5.2 by 951.260.2+9
- AA-OmniscienceGLM-5.3-Flash by 8.47.5-0.9+8.4
- ARC-AGI-1GLM-5.3-Flash by 4.89186.2+4.8
- livebench_languageGPT-5.2 by 2.577.379.8+2.5
- livebench_data_analysisGPT-5.2 by 1.876.478.2+1.8
- MMVUtie80.580.8tie
Questions people ask
Which is better, GLM-5.3-Flash or GPT-5.2?
GLM-5.3-Flash and GPT-5.2 each win four of the eight areas we test. GLM-5.3-Flash wins coding, agents, reasoning and images and charts; GPT-5.2 wins facts, math, long documents and following instructions. GLM-5.3-Flash costs 96% less.
Which is better for coding?
GLM-5.3-Flash. It wins 3 of the 4 coding tests both models report; GPT-5.2 wins none, and 1 is a tie.
Which is cheaper?
GLM-5.3-Flash costs $0.15 per million input tokens and $0.50 per million output tokens; GPT-5.2 costs $1.75 and $14.00. That makes GLM-5.3-Flash about 96% cheaper for the same work.
How do you compare the two?
We use the 32 benchmark tests both models have published scores on. The verdict counts the 22 tests in the eight capability areas, and a gap under one point (ten on rating-style scales) counts as a tie. The other 10 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.