Model comparison
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite vs GLM-5
Head-to-head evidence from 11 shared benchmark results across 4 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite unranked (Not scored); GLM-5 #28 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite and GLM-5 share 11 comparable benchmark results. 3 of 8 categories are comparable. 10 results are unique to Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite; 38 to GLM-5.
Updated July 21, 2026- Shared results
- 11
- Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite only
- 10
- GLM-5 only
- 38
- Comparable categories
- 3 / 8
Treat this as a split decision. Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite makes more sense if reasoning is the priority or you want the cheaper token bill; GLM-5 is the better fit if coding is the priority or you would rather avoid the extra latency and token burn of a reasoning model.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 11 shared benchmark results across 4 evidence categories; 3 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.
Why this result
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite and GLM-5 finish on the same BenchAlign overall score, so this is less about a single winner and more about where the edge shows up. The BenchAlign headline says tie; the benchmark table is where the real choice happens.
GLM-5 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $1.00 input / $3.20 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.30 input / $2.50 output per 1M tokens for Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite. Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite is the reasoning model in the pair, while GLM-5 is not. That usually helps on harder chain-of-thought-heavy tests, but it can also mean more latency and more token spend in real use. Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 200K for GLM-5.
Category breakdown
Exact category averages are shown below. Not measured means BenchLM does not have enough sourced public coverage for that model and category.
| Category | Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite | Δ | GLM-5 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite54.2 | Margin→ 12.1 | GLM-566.3 |
| Reasoning | Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite72.2 | Margin← 11.4 | GLM-560.8 |
| Agentic | Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite63.4 | Margin← 7.2 | GLM-556.2 |
| Knowledge | Gemini 3.5 Flash-LiteNot measured | MarginNo overlap | GLM-566.4 |
| Math | Gemini 3.5 Flash-LiteNot measured | MarginNo overlap | GLM-556.3 |
| Multilingual | Gemini 3.5 Flash-LiteNot measured | MarginNo overlap | GLM-583.1 |
| Inst. Following | Gemini 3.5 Flash-LiteNot measured | MarginNo overlap | GLM-592.6 |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
Terminal-Bench 2.0
AgenticA 54%B 56.2%Winner: GLM-5Δ 2.2Terminal-Bench 2.0: Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite scored 54%; GLM-5 scored 56.2%. GLM-5 wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
SWE-bench Pro
CodingA 54.2%B 55.1%Winner: GLM-5Δ 0.9SWE-bench Pro: Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite scored 54.2%; GLM-5 scored 55.1%. GLM-5 wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite | GLM-5 | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite$0.3 input / $2.5 output | GLM-5$1 input / $3.2 output | Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Gemini 3.5 Flash-LiteNot available | GLM-574 tok/s | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Gemini 3.5 Flash-LiteNot available | GLM-51.64 s | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite1M | GLM-5200K | Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
AgenticGemini 3.5 Flash-Lite wins19 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite | GLM-5 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 54% | 56.2% | GLM-5 leads |
| OSWorld-VerifiedSource | 74% | — | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | 1140 | — | Not comparable |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | 26.8% | — | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | 32.0% | — | Not comparable |
| AA BriefcaseSource | 634 | — | Not comparable |
| AA Tau3 BankingSource | 16.5% | — | Not comparable |
| Claw-EvalSource | — | 57.7% | Not comparable |
| QwenClawBenchSource | — | 54.1% | Not comparable |
| τ³-bench resultsSource | — | 65.6% | Not comparable |
| DeepPlanningSource | — | 14.6% | Not comparable |
| ToolathlonSource | — | 38% | Not comparable |
| MCP AtlasSource | — | 31.1% | Not comparable |
| MCP-TasksSource | — | 60.8% | Not comparable |
| WideResearchSource | — | 69.8% | Not comparable |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | — | 98.2% | Not comparable |
| CyberGymSource | — | 43.2% | Not comparable |
| APEX-Agents-AASource | — | 14.5% | Not comparable |
| Gert LabsSource | — | 50.99% | Not comparable |
CodingGLM-5 wins9 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite | GLM-5 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 54.0% | — | Not comparable |
| SWE-bench ProSource | 54.2% | 55.1% | GLM-5 leads |
| AA Coding IndexSource | 49.3% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 40.9% | 46.2% | GLM-5 leads |
| SWE-bench VerifiedSource | — | 77.8% | Not comparable |
| SWE-bench Verified*Source | — | 72.8% | Not comparable |
| SWE MultilingualSource | — | 73.3% | Not comparable |
| SWE-RebenchSource | — | 62.8% | Not comparable |
| React Native EvalsSource | — | 74.8% | Not comparable |
ReasoningGemini 3.5 Flash-Lite wins5 benchmarks
Knowledge12 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite | GLM-5 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 36.5% | 39.5% | GLM-5 leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 83.8% | 82.0% | Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite leads |
| AA-HLESource | 17.5% | 27.2% | GLM-5 leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | 6.9% | 2.0% | Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 30.3% | 26.9% | Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 33.5% | 34.0% | Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite leads |
| GPQASource | — | 86% | Not comparable |
| GPQA-DSource | — | 86.0% | Not comparable |
| SuperGPQASource | — | 66.8% | Not comparable |
| MMLU-ProSource | — | 85.7% | Not comparable |
| MMLU-Pro (Arcee)Source | — | 85.8% | Not comparable |
| HLESource | — | 50.4% | Not comparable |
Math8 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite | GLM-5 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AIME26Source | — | 95.8% | Not comparable |
| AIME25 (Arcee)Source | — | 93.3% | Not comparable |
| HMMT Feb 2025Source | — | 97.5% | Not comparable |
| HMMT Nov 2025Source | — | 96.9% | Not comparable |
| HMMT Feb 2026Source | — | 86.4% | Not comparable |
| MMAnswerBenchSource | — | 82.5% | Not comparable |
| FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source | — | 16.434% | Not comparable |
| FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source | — | 2.100% | Not comparable |
Multilingual2 benchmarks
Multimodal2 benchmarks
Frequently Asked Questions (4)
Which is better, Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite or GLM-5?
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite and GLM-5 are tied on the BenchAlign overall score, so the right pick depends on which category matters most for your use case.
Which is better for coding, Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite or GLM-5?
GLM-5 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 66.3 versus 54.2. Inside this category, AA-SciCode is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for reasoning, Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite or GLM-5?
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite has the edge for reasoning in this comparison, averaging 72.2 versus 60.8. Inside this category, CritPt is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for agentic tasks, Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite or GLM-5?
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 63.4 versus 56.2. Inside this category, Terminal-Bench 2.0 is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
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.