Model comparison
Gemini 3 Pro vs GLM-5
Head-to-head evidence from 14 shared benchmark results across 6 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: Gemini 3 Pro #19 (Supported); GLM-5 #28 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Gemini 3 Pro and GLM-5 share 14 comparable benchmark results. 2 of 8 categories are comparable. 13 results are unique to Gemini 3 Pro; 35 to GLM-5.
Updated July 20, 2026- Shared results
- 14
- Gemini 3 Pro only
- 13
- GLM-5 only
- 35
- Comparable categories
- 2 / 8
Pick Gemini 3 Pro if you want the stronger benchmark profile. GLM-5 only becomes the better choice if reasoning is the priority or you want the cheaper token bill.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 14 shared benchmark results across 6 evidence categories; 2 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 Pro has the cleaner BenchAlign overall profile here, landing at 67.73 versus 66.06. It is a real lead, but still close enough that category-level strengths matter more than the headline number.
Gemini 3 Pro is also the more expensive model on tokens at $2.00 input / $12.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $1.00 input / $3.20 output per 1M tokens for GLM-5. That is roughly 3.8x on output cost alone. Gemini 3 Pro gives you the larger context window at 2M, 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 Pro | Δ | GLM-5 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reasoning | Gemini 3 Pro31.1 | Margin→ 29.7 | GLM-560.8 |
| Math | Gemini 3 Pro32.9 | Margin→ 23.4 | GLM-556.3 |
| Agentic | Gemini 3 ProNot measured | MarginNo overlap | GLM-556.2 |
| Coding | Gemini 3 ProNot measured | MarginNo overlap | GLM-566.3 |
| Knowledge | Gemini 3 ProNot measured | MarginNo overlap | GLM-566.4 |
| Multilingual | Gemini 3 ProNot measured | MarginNo overlap | GLM-583.1 |
| Multimodal | Gemini 3 Pro81.1 | MarginNo overlap | GLM-5Not measured |
| Inst. Following | Gemini 3 ProNot measured | MarginNo overlap | GLM-592.6 |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)
MathA 37.600%B 16.434%Winner: Gemini 3 ProΔ 21.2FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3): Gemini 3 Pro scored 37.600%; GLM-5 scored 16.434%. Gemini 3 Pro wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)
MathA 18.750%B 2.100%Winner: Gemini 3 ProΔ 16.7FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4): Gemini 3 Pro scored 18.750%; GLM-5 scored 2.100%. Gemini 3 Pro wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Gemini 3 Pro | GLM-5 | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Gemini 3 Pro$2 input / $12 output | GLM-5$1 input / $3.2 output | GLM-5 has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Gemini 3 Pro109 tok/s | GLM-574 tok/s | Gemini 3 Pro has the higher measured throughput. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Gemini 3 Pro32.65 s | GLM-51.64 s | GLM-5 reaches the first token sooner. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Gemini 3 Pro2M | GLM-5200K | Gemini 3 Pro lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic14 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemini 3 Pro | GLM-5 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| τ²-bench resultsSource | 87.1% | 98.2% | GLM-5 leads |
| Gert LabsSource | 63.23% | 50.99% | Gemini 3 Pro leads |
| JobBenchSource | 11.4% | — | Not comparable |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | — | 56.2% | 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 |
| CyberGymSource | — | 43.2% | Not comparable |
| APEX-Agents-AASource | — | 14.5% | Not comparable |
Coding9 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemini 3 Pro | GLM-5 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vibe Code BenchSource | 14.30% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 56.1% | 46.2% | Gemini 3 Pro leads |
| AA LiveCodeBenchSource | 91.7% | — | Not comparable |
| SWE-bench VerifiedSource | — | 77.8% | Not comparable |
| SWE-bench Verified*Source | — | 72.8% | Not comparable |
| SWE-bench ProSource | — | 55.1% | Not comparable |
| SWE MultilingualSource | — | 73.3% | Not comparable |
| SWE-RebenchSource | — | 62.8% | Not comparable |
| React Native EvalsSource | — | 74.8% | Not comparable |
ReasoningGLM-5 wins5 benchmarks
Knowledge13 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemini 3 Pro | GLM-5 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 39.5% | 39.5% | Gemini 3 Pro leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 90.8% | 82.0% | Gemini 3 Pro leads |
| AA-HLESource | 37.2% | 27.2% | Gemini 3 Pro leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | 15.8% | 2.0% | Gemini 3 Pro leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 55.9% | 26.9% | Gemini 3 Pro leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 90.9% | 34.0% | GLM-5 leads |
| AA MMLU-ProSource | 89.8% | — | Not comparable |
| 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 |
MathGLM-5 wins8 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemini 3 Pro | GLM-5 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source | 37.600% | 16.434% | Gemini 3 Pro leads |
| FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source | 18.750% | 2.100% | Gemini 3 Pro leads |
| 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 |
Multilingual3 benchmarks
Multimodal8 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemini 3 Pro | GLM-5 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMMU-ProSource | 81% | — | Not comparable |
| MathVisionSource | 86.6% | — | Not comparable |
| VideoMMMUSource | 87.6% | — | Not comparable |
| ScreenSpot ProSource | 72.7% | — | Not comparable |
| CharXivSource | 81.4% | — | Not comparable |
| V*Source | 88.0% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-MMMU-ProSource | 80.2% | — | Not comparable |
| Design Arena WebsiteSource | — | 1280 | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (3)
Which is better, Gemini 3 Pro or GLM-5?
Gemini 3 Pro is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 67.73 to 66.06. The biggest single separator in this matchup is FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3), where the scores are 37.600% and 16.434%.
Which is better for math, Gemini 3 Pro or GLM-5?
GLM-5 has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 56.3 versus 32.9. Inside this category, FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3) is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for reasoning, Gemini 3 Pro or GLM-5?
GLM-5 has the edge for reasoning in this comparison, averaging 60.8 versus 31.1. Inside this category, AA-LCR 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.