Model comparison
Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite vs GLM-5.2
GLM-5.2 is the stronger model overall, scoring 50.9 to 41.8 on the Noometry Index. Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite costs 2.5× less per token, which makes it the better buy when GLM-5.2's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 36 shared benchmarks.
GoogleSummary
- They share 36 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite scores higher in 0 categories and GLM-5.2 in 9 categories; 9 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where GLM-5.2 leads 55.4 to 25.7.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3): 26% for Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite and 59.2% for GLM-5.2.
- Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite is cheaper at $0.30 / $2.50 per million input/output tokens, against $1.40 / $4.40 for GLM-5.2.
- Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite accepts more context: 1.05M tokens versus 1M.
- GLM-5.2 has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite | GLM-5.2 | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Z.ai (Zhipu) | |
| Noometry Index | 41.8 | 50.9 |
| Released | 2026-07-21 | 2026-06-13 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | 1.05M | 1M |
| Max output | 66K | 131K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.30 | $1.40 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $2.50 | $4.40 |
| Results tracked | 38 | 50 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding GLM-5.2 leads
Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite: 42.1 (#96), GLM-5.2: 50.9 (#37)
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite | GLM-5.2 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena WebDev | 1440 | 1604 |
| SciCode | 41.3% | 50.5% |
| WeirdML | 39% | 70.1% |
| LMArena Coding | 1455 | 1484 |
| ALE-Bench | 765.27 | 1,047 |
| SWE-bench Verified | — | 78.7% |
| DeepSWE | — | 43.8% |
| FrontierCode | — | 24.5% |
Agentic & Tool Use GLM-5.2 leads
Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite: 28.6 (#82), GLM-5.2: 31.6 (#63)
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite | GLM-5.2 |
|---|---|---|
| τ²-bench Banking | — | 37.1% |
| PostTrainBench | — | 31.7% |
| GBAEval | — | 0% |
| GDP.pdf | 10% | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | — | 8,314 |
Reasoning GLM-5.2 leads
Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite: 27.8 (#95), GLM-5.2: 42.1 (#46)
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite | GLM-5.2 |
|---|---|---|
| ARC-AGI-2 | 10.3% | 22.8% |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 60.4% | 74.3% |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 53.5% | 77% |
| CritPt | 0% | 20.9% |
| Chess Puzzles | 22% | 21% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1441 | 1480 |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 19% | 19% |
| DTBench | 83.5% | 93.6% |
| LMCA | 37.6% | 45.8% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 145.12 | 151.76 |
| SimpleBench | — | 58.8% |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | — | 62.6% |
| EBR-Bench | — | 9.5% |
| Surface Evolver Bench | — | 55.6% |
Math GLM-5.2 leads
Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite: 25.7 (#245), GLM-5.2: 55.4 (#35)
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite | GLM-5.2 |
|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 26% | 59.2% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 0% | 29.3% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 71.1% | 86.4% |
| ProofBench | 13% | 35% |
| LMArena Math | 1431 | 1482 |
| MathArena Final-Answer Competitions | — | 67.6% |
Knowledge GLM-5.2 leads
Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite: 50.0 (#66), GLM-5.2: 57.1 (#36)
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite | GLM-5.2 |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 83.3% | 91.9% |
| LMArena Expert | 1430 | 1484 |
| SimpleQA Verified | — | 34.2% |
Multimodal Not comparable
Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite: 40.3 (#38), GLM-5.2: —
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite | GLM-5.2 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1266 | — |
Multilingual GLM-5.2 leads
Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite: 53.8 (#59), GLM-5.2: 56.0 (#25)
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite | GLM-5.2 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1428 | 1459 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1467 | 1518 |
| LMArena French | 1452 | 1476 |
| LMArena German | 1454 | 1470 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1428 | 1451 |
| LMArena Korean | 1406 | 1445 |
| LMArena Russian | 1443 | 1467 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1440 | 1477 |
Instruction Following GLM-5.2 leads
Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite: 75.0 (#77), GLM-5.2: 77.1 (#32)
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite | GLM-5.2 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1420 | 1465 |
Long Context GLM-5.2 leads
Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite: 43.8 (#80), GLM-5.2: 45.3 (#43)
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite | GLM-5.2 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1435 | 1479 |
Writing & Preference GLM-5.2 leads
Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite: 64.4 (#55), GLM-5.2: 70.7 (#20)
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite | GLM-5.2 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1436 | 1470 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1419 | 1465 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1559 | 1757 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1445 | 1468 |
| EQ-Bench 4 | — | 1222 |
Frequently asked questions
Is Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite better than GLM-5.2?
GLM-5.2 is the stronger model overall, scoring 50.9 to 41.8 on the Noometry Index. Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite costs 2.5× less per token, which makes it the better buy when GLM-5.2's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite or GLM-5.2?
Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite is cheaper. It lists at $0.30 per million input tokens and $2.50 per million output tokens; GLM-5.2 lists at $1.40 and $4.40.
Is Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite or GLM-5.2 better for coding?
GLM-5.2 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 50.9 versus 42.1 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite does, with 1.05M tokens against 1M.
How many benchmarks do Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite and GLM-5.2 share?
36 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite has 38 scored results on Noometry and GLM-5.2 has 50.