Model comparison
Gemini 3.5 Flash Cyber vs GLM-5.2
Head-to-head evidence from 0 shared benchmark results across 0 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: Gemini 3.5 Flash Cyber unranked (Not scored); GLM-5.2 #37 (Estimated). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Gemini 3.5 Flash Cyber and GLM-5.2 share 0 comparable benchmark results. 0 of 8 categories are comparable. 1 result is unique to Gemini 3.5 Flash Cyber; 43 to GLM-5.2.
Updated July 24, 2026- Shared results
- 0
- Gemini 3.5 Flash Cyber only
- 1
- GLM-5.2 only
- 43
- Comparable categories
- 0 / 8
Benchmark data for Gemini 3.5 Flash Cyber and GLM-5.2 is coming soon on BenchLM.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 0 shared benchmark results across 0 evidence categories; 0 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.
Why this result
BenchLM has partial data for these models, but not enough overlapping benchmark coverage to produce a fair score-level comparison yet.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Gemini 3.5 Flash Cyber | GLM-5.2 | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Gemini 3.5 Flash CyberNot available | GLM-5.2$1.4 input / $4.4 output | A complete price comparison is not available. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Gemini 3.5 Flash CyberNot available | GLM-5.2Not available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Gemini 3.5 Flash CyberNot available | GLM-5.2Not available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Gemini 3.5 Flash CyberNot available | GLM-5.21M | A complete context comparison is not available. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic18 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.5 Flash Cyber | GLM-5.2 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| CyberGymSource | 83.2% | — | Not comparable |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | — | 81% | Not comparable |
| MCP AtlasSource | — | 76.8% | Not comparable |
| ToolathlonSource | — | 48.2% | Not comparable |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | — | 43.1% | Not comparable |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | — | 99.1% | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | — | 50.7% | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | — | 1514 | Not comparable |
| APEX-Agents-AASource | — | 33.7% | Not comparable |
| ResearchClawBenchSource | — | 20.7% | Not comparable |
| AA BriefcaseSource | — | 1260 | Not comparable |
| AA AutomationBenchSource | — | 27.8% | Not comparable |
| AA EnterpriseOps-GymSource | — | 42.7% | Not comparable |
| AA Harvey LABSource | — | 91.0% | Not comparable |
| AA ITBenchSource | — | 42.7% | Not comparable |
| AA Tau3 BankingSource | — | 26.8% | Not comparable |
| terminalBenchHardSource | — | 50.8% | Not comparable |
| aaTerminalBench21Source | — | 77.9% | Not comparable |
Coding7 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.5 Flash Cyber | GLM-5.2 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench ProSource | — | 62.1% | Not comparable |
| NL2RepoSource | — | 48.9% | Not comparable |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | — | 81.0% | Not comparable |
| ProgramBenchSource | — | 63.7% | Not comparable |
| cursorBench32Source | — | 55.0% | Not comparable |
| AA Coding IndexSource | — | 68.8% | Not comparable |
| AA-SciCodeSource | — | 50.5% | Not comparable |
Reasoning2 benchmarks
Knowledge11 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.5 Flash Cyber | GLM-5.2 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQASource | — | 91.2% | Not comparable |
| GPQA-DSource | — | 91.2% | Not comparable |
| HLESource | — | 54.7% | Not comparable |
| HLE w/o toolsSource | — | 40.5% | Not comparable |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | — | 51.1% | Not comparable |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | — | 89.5% | Not comparable |
| AA-HLESource | — | 40.1% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | — | 4.0% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | — | 25.1% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | — | 28.1% | Not comparable |
| AA Openness IndexSource | — | 44.4% | Not comparable |
Math4 benchmarks
Multimodal1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.5 Flash Cyber | GLM-5.2 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Design Arena WebsiteSource | — | 1340 | Not comparable |
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.5 Flash Cyber | GLM-5.2 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | — | 73.3% | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (3)
Can I compare Gemini 3.5 Flash Cyber and GLM-5.2 on BenchLM yet?
Not fully yet. BenchLM is tracking both models, but the sourced benchmark breakdown for this comparison is still coming soon.
Why does this comparison show “coming soon”?
BenchLM only shows category winners and benchmark-level calls when we have sourced results that can be compared fairly. For these models, the public benchmark coverage is not complete enough yet.
What data is available for Gemini 3.5 Flash Cyber and GLM-5.2 today?
Gemini 3.5 Flash Cyber: Pricing unavailable GLM-5.2: $1.40 input / $4.40 output per 1M tokens Both model pages still include creator, context window, reasoning mode, and other metadata while benchmark coverage fills in.
Related Comparisons
Explore More
Choose a model with this week’s evidence
Join 2,000+ readers for ranking moves, pricing changes, and the claims that still need proof.
One email each week. Unsubscribe anytime.