Head-to-head comparison across 2benchmark categories. Overall scores shown here use BenchLM's provisional ranking lane.
Composer 2
72
GLM-5.2
94
Verified leaderboard positions: Composer 2 unranked · GLM-5.2 #9
Pick GLM-5.2 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Composer 2 only becomes the better choice if you want the cheaper token bill.
Agentic
+19.3 difference
Coding
+4.1 difference
Composer 2
GLM-5.2
$0.5 / $2.5
$1.4 / $4.4
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
200K
1M
Pick GLM-5.2 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Composer 2 only becomes the better choice if you want the cheaper token bill.
GLM-5.2 is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 94 to 72. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
GLM-5.2's sharpest advantage is in agentic, where it averages 81 against 61.7. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is Terminal-Bench 2.0, 61.7% to 81%.
GLM-5.2 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $1.40 input / $4.40 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.50 input / $2.50 output per 1M tokens for Composer 2. GLM-5.2 gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 200K for Composer 2.
GLM-5.2 is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 94 to 72. The biggest single separator in this matchup is Terminal-Bench 2.0, where the scores are 61.7% and 81%.
GLM-5.2 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 62.1 versus 58. Inside this category, Terminal-Bench 2.0 is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
GLM-5.2 has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 81 versus 61.7. Inside this category, Terminal-Bench 2.0 is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
For engineers, researchers, and the plain curious — a weekly brief on new models, ranking shifts, and pricing changes.
Free. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.