Skip to main content
BenchLM
Advertise

Model comparison

Gemini 3.1 Pro vs GLM-5.2

Updated July 31, 2026. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. They are not guarantees for a specific workload.

21 confirmed releases in the last 30 daystrack changes
Gemini 3.1 Pro

Google

54.7/100

Estimated · Public rank #88

90% interval 38.8–70.6

GLM-5.2

Z.AI

62.9/100

Estimated · Public rank #41

90% interval 47.7–78.2

GLM-5.2 has the higher public score estimate, 62.94 versus 54.71, but the 90% score intervals overlap. Treat that as a lead, not a settled winner.

3 results are shared. Category rows based on different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.

Which one for your work

Recommendations appear only when a shared evidence basis or an explicit operating constraint supports the call. Secondary and unsupported use cases stay disclosed below the initial list.

  • Chat turn cost

    1K fresh input + 500 output tokens

    GLM-5.2

    GLM-5.2 has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.

    Confidence: listed-rates

  • Cache-heavy agent loop cost

    200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens

    Gemini 3.1 Pro

    Gemini 3.1 Pro has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. GLM-5.2 has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.

    Confidence: rate-fallback

Show secondary and unsupported calls

  • Repository review cost

    50K fresh input + 3K output tokens

    GLM-5.2

    GLM-5.2 has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.

    Confidence: listed-rates

  • Coding work

    Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks

    Not enough matched evidence

    No shared weighted benchmark basis supports a winner.

    Confidence: limited

  • Agentic work

    Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion

    Not enough matched evidence

    No shared weighted benchmark basis supports a winner.

    Confidence: limited

  • Long documents

    Prompts that approach the documented context limit

    No clear pick

    The documented context windows are equal.

    Confidence: documented

What is actually comparable

Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results present for only one model describe coverage, not superiority.

Shared results
3
Gemini 3.1 Pro only
20
GLM-5.2 only
15
Like-for-like categories
0 / 8

Category results, on a stated basis

Each row states whether both averages use the same weighted benchmark set. Directional and not-comparable rows remain visible, but they never receive a winner in this template.

Agentic

Not comparable
Gemini 3.1 Pro
Not measured
GLM-5.2
81.0
Weighted basis
0 vs 1 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Coding

Not comparable
Gemini 3.1 Pro
Not measured
GLM-5.2
62.1
Weighted basis
0 vs 1 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Reasoning

Not comparable
Gemini 3.1 Pro
77.1
GLM-5.2
Not measured
Weighted basis
1 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Knowledge

Not comparable
Gemini 3.1 Pro
Not measured
GLM-5.2
59.6
Weighted basis
0 vs 2 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Math

Not comparable
Gemini 3.1 Pro
31.8
GLM-5.2
95.9
Weighted basis
2 vs 2 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multilingual

Not comparable
Gemini 3.1 Pro
Not measured
GLM-5.2
Not measured
Weighted basis
0 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multimodal

Not comparable
Gemini 3.1 Pro
82.6
GLM-5.2
Not measured
Weighted basis
2 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Instruction following

Not comparable
Gemini 3.1 Pro
Not measured
GLM-5.2
Not measured
Weighted basis
0 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Shape of the matched evidence

Only shared public evidence is shown. Sparse evidence stays a ruled list rather than being closed into a radar shape.

A shared-evidence shape is not available.

BenchLM does not draw a radar or infer missing axes when the matched evidence is too sparse.

What each workload costs

Three fixed token mixes turn per-token rates into comparable decisions. Each scenario states context fit and whether cached input had to fall back to the published list-input rate.

Chat turn

1K fresh input + 500 output tokens

Gemini 3.1 Pro
$0.008
Fits in one request
GLM-5.2
$0.0036
Fits in one request

GLM-5.2 has the lower modeled cost

Costs use the listed standard API rates.

Repository review

50K fresh input + 3K output tokens

Gemini 3.1 Pro
$0.136
Fits in one request
GLM-5.2
$0.0832
Fits in one request

GLM-5.2 has the lower modeled cost

Costs use the listed standard API rates.

Cache-heavy agent loop

200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens

Gemini 3.1 Pro
$0.2
Fits in one request
GLM-5.2
$0.352
Fits in one request
Cached input priced at the published list-input rate

Gemini 3.1 Pro has the lower modeled cost

GLM-5.2 has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.

Specification differences

Sourced differences are shown directly. Missing facts stay explicit instead of being inferred from a model name or family.

Cached-input rate

A missing cached-input rate falls back to the listed input rate only in the stated workload estimate.

Gemini 3.1 Pro

$0.2 per 1M cached input tokens

Google Gemini API pricing

GLM-5.2

Not published

Reasoning profile

Gemini 3.1 Pro

Reasoning

GLM-5.2

Reasoning

Weight access

Gemini 3.1 Pro

Proprietary

GLM-5.2

Open Weight

License

Gemini 3.1 Pro

Proprietary

GLM-5.2

Open Weight

Release date

Gemini 3.1 Pro

2026-02-19

GLM-5.2

2026-06-16

If you already use one of these models
Deployment change
The models list different providers, so authentication, endpoint behavior, limits, and feature support may change.
Quality signal
GLM-5.2 has the higher public score estimate, 62.94 versus 54.71, but the 90% score intervals overlap.
Workload cost
Repository review: $0.136 vs $0.0832. Cache-heavy agent loop: $0.2 vs $0.352.
Context tradeoff
Both models list 1M.

Run the same representative tasks against both endpoints before changing production traffic.

Benchmark evidence

The full public result ledger is available for audit without forcing a wide desktop table onto a phone.

Browse raw public benchmark evidence38 rows

Agentic

  • Claw-Eval

    Gemini 3.1 Pro57.8%
    Source
    GLM-5.2—

    Not directly comparable

  • DeepSearchQA

    Gemini 3.1 Pro69.7%
    Source
    GLM-5.2—

    Not directly comparable

  • τ²-bench results

    Gemini 3.1 Pro95.6%
    Source
    GLM-5.2—

    Not directly comparable

  • Gert Labs

    Gemini 3.1 Pro56.87%
    Source
    GLM-5.2—

    Not directly comparable

  • ResearchClawBench

    Shared source
    Gemini 3.1 Pro13.3%
    GLM-5.220.7%

    GLM-5.2 leads this result

  • Terminal-Bench 2.0

    Gemini 3.1 Pro—
    GLM-5.281%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • MCP Atlas

    Gemini 3.1 Pro—
    GLM-5.276.8%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • Toolathlon

    Gemini 3.1 Pro—
    GLM-5.248.2%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Coding

  • LiveCodeBench Pro

    Gemini 3.1 Pro82.9%
    Source
    GLM-5.2—

    Not directly comparable

  • React Native Evals

    Gemini 3.1 Pro78.9%
    Source
    GLM-5.2—

    Not directly comparable

  • Vibe Code Bench

    Gemini 3.1 Pro32.03%
    Source
    GLM-5.2—

    Not directly comparable

  • SWE-bench Pro

    Gemini 3.1 Pro—
    GLM-5.262.1%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • NL2Repo

    Gemini 3.1 Pro—
    GLM-5.248.9%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • Terminal-Bench 2.0

    Gemini 3.1 Pro—
    GLM-5.281.0%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • ProgramBench

    Gemini 3.1 Pro—
    GLM-5.263.7%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • cursorBench32

    Gemini 3.1 Pro—
    GLM-5.255.0%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Reasoning

  • ARC-AGI-2

    Gemini 3.1 Pro77.1%
    Source
    GLM-5.2—

    Not directly comparable

  • ARC-AGI-3

    Gemini 3.1 Pro0.4%
    Source
    GLM-5.2—

    Not directly comparable

  • CritPt

    Gemini 3.1 Pro—
    GLM-5.220.9%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Knowledge

  • GPQA-D

    Gemini 3.1 Pro94.3%
    Source
    GLM-5.291.2%
    Source

    Gemini 3.1 Pro leads this result

  • HLE w/o tools

    Gemini 3.1 Pro45.4%
    Source
    GLM-5.240.5%
    Source

    Gemini 3.1 Pro leads this result

  • HealthBench Hard

    Gemini 3.1 Pro20.6%
    Source
    GLM-5.2—

    Not directly comparable

  • MedXpertQA (Text)

    Gemini 3.1 Pro71.5%
    Source
    GLM-5.2—

    Not directly comparable

  • GPQA

    Gemini 3.1 Pro—
    GLM-5.291.2%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • HLE

    Gemini 3.1 Pro—
    GLM-5.254.7%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Math

  • FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)

    Gemini 3.1 Pro36.900%
    Source
    GLM-5.2—

    Not directly comparable

  • FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)

    Gemini 3.1 Pro16.700%
    Source
    GLM-5.2—

    Not directly comparable

  • AIME26

    Gemini 3.1 Pro—
    GLM-5.299.2%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • HMMT Nov 2025

    Gemini 3.1 Pro—
    GLM-5.294.4%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • HMMT Feb 2026

    Gemini 3.1 Pro—
    GLM-5.292.5%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • MMAnswerBench

    Gemini 3.1 Pro—
    GLM-5.291.0%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Multimodal

  • MMMU-Pro

    Gemini 3.1 Pro83.9%
    Source
    GLM-5.2—

    Not directly comparable

  • CharXiv

    Gemini 3.1 Pro80.2%
    Source
    GLM-5.2—

    Not directly comparable

  • ERQA

    Gemini 3.1 Pro69.4%
    Source
    GLM-5.2—

    Not directly comparable

  • SimpleVQA

    Gemini 3.1 Pro72.4%
    Source
    GLM-5.2—

    Not directly comparable

  • ScreenSpot Pro

    Gemini 3.1 Pro84.4%
    Source
    GLM-5.2—

    Not directly comparable

  • ZeroBench

    Gemini 3.1 Pro29.0%
    Source
    GLM-5.2—

    Not directly comparable

  • MedXpertQA (MM)

    Gemini 3.1 Pro81.3%
    Source
    GLM-5.2—

    Not directly comparable

Frequently asked questions

Which is better, Gemini 3.1 Pro or GLM-5.2?

GLM-5.2 has the higher public score estimate, 62.94 versus 54.71, but the 90% score intervals overlap. The higher estimate is not a decisive winner because the uncertainty ranges overlap.

Which is better for coding, Gemini 3.1 Pro or GLM-5.2?

The published evidence does not provide a shared weighted coding basis for both models, so BenchLM does not name a coding winner.

Which is better for agentic tasks, Gemini 3.1 Pro or GLM-5.2?

The published evidence does not provide a shared weighted agentic tasks basis for both models, so BenchLM does not name a agentic tasks winner.

Which costs less, Gemini 3.1 Pro or GLM-5.2?

For the stated presets, chat costs $0.008 on Gemini 3.1 Pro and $0.0036 on GLM-5.2; repository review costs $0.136 and $0.0832; the cache-heavy agent loop costs $0.2 and $0.352. GLM-5.2 has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.

Which has the larger context window, Gemini 3.1 Pro or GLM-5.2?

Both models list the same context window, 1M.

Related comparisons

Compare API pricing Read the methodology Open the model selector

Last updated July 31, 2026

Watch Gemini 3.1 Pro vs GLM-5.2

One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.

Read a sample issue

Join 2,000+ readers.