Model comparison
Gemma 4 12B vs GLM-5
Head-to-head evidence from 15 shared benchmark results across 6 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: Gemma 4 12B #137 (Estimated); GLM-5 #28 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Gemma 4 12B and GLM-5 share 15 comparable benchmark results. 3 of 8 categories are comparable. 8 results are unique to Gemma 4 12B; 34 to GLM-5.
Updated July 23, 2026- Shared results
- 15
- Gemma 4 12B only
- 8
- GLM-5 only
- 34
- Comparable categories
- 3 / 8
Pick GLM-5 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Gemma 4 12B only becomes the better choice if mathematics is the priority or you need the larger 256K context window.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 15 shared benchmark results across 6 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
GLM-5 is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 66.06 to 47.29. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
GLM-5's sharpest advantage is in reasoning, where it averages 60.8 against 43.4. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is AIME26, 77.5% to 95.8%. Gemma 4 12B does hit back in mathematics, so the answer changes if that is the part of the workload you care about most.
Gemma 4 12B 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. Gemma 4 12B gives you the larger context window at 256K, 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 | Gemma 4 12B | Δ | GLM-5 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Math | Gemma 4 12B77.5 | Margin← 21.2 | GLM-556.3 |
| Reasoning | Gemma 4 12B43.4 | Margin→ 17.4 | GLM-560.8 |
| Knowledge | Gemma 4 12B77.5 | Margin← 11.1 | GLM-566.4 |
| Agentic | Gemma 4 12BNot measured | MarginNo overlap | GLM-556.2 |
| Coding | Gemma 4 12BNot measured | MarginNo overlap | GLM-566.3 |
| Multilingual | Gemma 4 12BNot measured | MarginNo overlap | GLM-583.1 |
| Multimodal | Gemma 4 12B69.1 | MarginNo overlap | GLM-5Not measured |
| Inst. Following | Gemma 4 12BNot measured | MarginNo overlap | GLM-592.6 |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
AIME26
MathA 77.5%B 95.8%Winner: GLM-5Δ 18.3AIME26: Gemma 4 12B scored 77.5%; GLM-5 scored 95.8%. GLM-5 wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
MMLU-Pro
KnowledgeA 77.2%B 85.7%Winner: GLM-5Δ 8.5MMLU-Pro: Gemma 4 12B scored 77.2%; GLM-5 scored 85.7%. GLM-5 wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
GPQA
KnowledgeA 78.8%B 86%Winner: GLM-5Δ 7.2GPQA: Gemma 4 12B scored 78.8%; GLM-5 scored 86%. GLM-5 wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Gemma 4 12B | GLM-5 | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Gemma 4 12BNot available | GLM-5$1 input / $3.2 output | A complete price comparison is not available. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Gemma 4 12BNot available | GLM-574 tok/s | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Gemma 4 12BNot available | GLM-51.64 s | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Gemma 4 12B256K | GLM-5200K | Gemma 4 12B lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic13 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemma 4 12B | GLM-5 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| τ²-bench resultsSource | 36.3% | 98.2% | GLM-5 leads |
| 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 |
| Gert LabsSource | — | 50.99% | Not comparable |
Coding7 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemma 4 12B | GLM-5 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-SciCodeSource | 38.2% | 46.2% | GLM-5 leads |
| 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 wins6 benchmarks
KnowledgeGemma 4 12B wins14 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemma 4 12B | GLM-5 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQASource | 78.8% | 86% | GLM-5 leads |
| GPQA-DSource | 78.8% | 86.0% | GLM-5 leads |
| MMLU-ProSource | 77.2% | 85.7% | GLM-5 leads |
| HLE w/o toolsSource | 5.2% | — | Not comparable |
| MMMLUSource | 83.4% | — | Not comparable |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 22.0% | 39.5% | GLM-5 leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 75.3% | 82.0% | GLM-5 leads |
| AA-HLESource | 14.8% | 27.2% | GLM-5 leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | -51.9% | 2.0% | GLM-5 leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 16.0% | 26.9% | GLM-5 leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 80.8% | 34.0% | GLM-5 leads |
| SuperGPQASource | — | 66.8% | Not comparable |
| MMLU-Pro (Arcee)Source | — | 85.8% | Not comparable |
| HLESource | — | 50.4% | Not comparable |
MathGemma 4 12B wins8 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemma 4 12B | GLM-5 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AIME26Source | 77.5% | 95.8% | GLM-5 leads |
| 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
Multimodal5 benchmarks
Frequently Asked Questions (4)
Which is better, Gemma 4 12B or GLM-5?
GLM-5 is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 66.06 to 47.29. The biggest single separator in this matchup is AIME26, where the scores are 77.5% and 95.8%.
Which is better for knowledge tasks, Gemma 4 12B or GLM-5?
Gemma 4 12B has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 77.5 versus 66.4. Inside this category, AA-Omniscience Index is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for math, Gemma 4 12B or GLM-5?
Gemma 4 12B has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 77.5 versus 56.3. Inside this category, AIME26 is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for reasoning, Gemma 4 12B or GLM-5?
GLM-5 has the edge for reasoning in this comparison, averaging 60.8 versus 43.4. 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.