Noometry

Model comparison

GLM-5.2 vs Qwen Max

GLM-5.2 is the stronger model overall, scoring 50.9 to 34.4 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 19 shared benchmarks.

GLM-5.2 Z.ai (Zhipu)

50.9

Rank #38 Confirmed

Qwen Max Alibaba (Qwen)

34.4

Rank #226 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 19 benchmarks with published results for both. GLM-5.2 scores higher in 8 categories and Qwen Max in 0 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in math, where GLM-5.2 leads 55.4 to 21.0.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 86.4% for GLM-5.2 and 16.1% for Qwen Max.
  • GLM-5.2 is cheaper at $1.40 / $4.40 per million input/output tokens, against $1.60 / $6.40 for Qwen Max.
  • GLM-5.2 accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 33K.
  • GLM-5.2 has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

GLM-5.2Qwen Max
ProviderZ.ai (Zhipu)Alibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index50.934.4
Released2026-06-132024-04-03
WeightsOpenProprietary
Context window1M33K
Max output131K8K
Input $ / M tokens$1.40$1.60
Output $ / M tokens$4.40$6.40
Results tracked5023

Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry

Category by category

Coding GLM-5.2 leads

GLM-5.2: 50.9 (#37), Qwen Max: 30.3 (#288)

BenchmarkGLM-5.2Qwen Max
LMArena Coding14841288
SWE-bench Verified78.7%—
DeepSWE43.8%—
FrontierCode24.5%—
Aider Polyglot—21.8%
LMArena WebDev1604—
SciCode50.5%—
WeirdML70.1%—
ALE-Bench1,047—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

GLM-5.2: 31.6 (#63), Qwen Max: —

BenchmarkGLM-5.2Qwen Max
τ²-bench Banking37.1%—
PostTrainBench31.7%—
GBAEval0%—
Vending-Bench 28,314—

Reasoning GLM-5.2 leads

GLM-5.2: 42.1 (#46), Qwen Max: 24.1 (#154)

BenchmarkGLM-5.2Qwen Max
LMArena Hard Prompts14801270
ARC-AGI-222.8%—
SimpleBench58.8%—
Kagi LLM Benchmark62.6%—
NYT Connections (extended)74.3%—
ARC-AGI-177%—
CritPt20.9%—
Chess Puzzles21%—
EBR-Bench9.5%—
Mystery Game Puzzles19%—
DTBench93.6%—
LMCA45.8%—
Surface Evolver Bench55.6%—
Epoch Capabilities Index151.76—

Math GLM-5.2 leads

GLM-5.2: 55.4 (#35), Qwen Max: 21.0 (#272)

BenchmarkGLM-5.2Qwen Max
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202586.4%16.1%
LMArena Math14821275
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)59.2%—
FrontierMath Tier 429.3%—
MathArena Final-Answer Competitions67.6%—
ProofBench35%—
MATH Level 5—67.2%
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)—1%

Knowledge GLM-5.2 leads

GLM-5.2: 57.1 (#36), Qwen Max: 30.3 (#222)

BenchmarkGLM-5.2Qwen Max
GPQA Diamond91.9%56.1%
LMArena Expert14841248
SimpleQA Verified34.2%—

Multilingual GLM-5.2 leads

GLM-5.2: 56.0 (#25), Qwen Max: 42.0 (#197)

BenchmarkGLM-5.2Qwen Max
LMArena Non-English14591263
LMArena Chinese15181254
LMArena French14761329
LMArena German14701254
LMArena Japanese14511205
LMArena Korean14451141
LMArena Russian14671274
LMArena Spanish14771290

Instruction Following GLM-5.2 leads

GLM-5.2: 77.1 (#32), Qwen Max: 66.7 (#203)

BenchmarkGLM-5.2Qwen Max
LMArena Instruction Following14651262

Long Context GLM-5.2 leads

GLM-5.2: 45.3 (#43), Qwen Max: 39.4 (#175)

BenchmarkGLM-5.2Qwen Max
LMArena Longer Query14791289
Fiction.LiveBench—66.7%

Writing & Preference GLM-5.2 leads

GLM-5.2: 70.7 (#20), Qwen Max: 48.0 (#200)

BenchmarkGLM-5.2Qwen Max
LMArena Text14701282
LMArena Creative Writing14651248
LMArena Multi-Turn14681277
EQ-Bench Creative Writing1757—
EQ-Bench 41222—

Frequently asked questions

Is GLM-5.2 better than Qwen Max?

GLM-5.2 is the stronger model overall, scoring 50.9 to 34.4 on the Noometry Index.

Which is cheaper, GLM-5.2 or Qwen Max?

GLM-5.2 is cheaper. It lists at $1.40 per million input tokens and $4.40 per million output tokens; Qwen Max lists at $1.60 and $6.40.

Is GLM-5.2 or Qwen Max better for coding?

GLM-5.2 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 50.9 versus 30.3 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

GLM-5.2 does, with 1M tokens against 33K.

How many benchmarks do GLM-5.2 and Qwen Max share?

19 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-5.2 has 50 scored results on Noometry and Qwen Max has 23.

Related comparisons

Go deeper