Model comparison

GLM-4.6 vs GPT-5.2

Data verified July 23, 2026

Head-to-head evidence from 14 shared benchmark results across 6 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

GLM-4.6

Z.AI

55.12/100

Margin

3.3pts

winning →

GPT-5.2

OpenAI

58.43/100

0 category wins1 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: GLM-4.6 #85 (Supported); GPT-5.2 #64 (Estimated). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. GLM-4.6 and GPT-5.2 share 14 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 0 results are unique to GLM-4.6; 14 to GPT-5.2.

Updated July 23, 2026

Shared results: 14
GLM-4.6 only: 0
GPT-5.2 only: 14
Comparable categories: 1 / 8

Pick GPT-5.2 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. GLM-4.6 only becomes the better choice if its workflow or ecosystem matters more than the raw scoreboard.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 14 shared benchmark results across 6 evidence categories; 1 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.

Why this result

GPT-5.2 is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 58.43 to 55.12. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.

GPT-5.2's sharpest advantage is in mathematics, where it averages 35.2 against 3.4. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3), 3.819% to 40.700%.

GPT-5.2 gives you the larger context window at 400K, compared with 200K for GLM-4.6.

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 scores and score margins for GLM-4.6 and GPT-5.2
Category	GLM-4.6	Δ	GPT-5.2
Math	GLM-4.63.4	Margin→ 31.8	GPT-5.235.2
Agentic	GLM-4.6Not measured	MarginNo overlap	GPT-5.255.7
Coding	GLM-4.6Not measured	MarginNo overlap	GPT-5.270.6
Reasoning	GLM-4.6Not measured	MarginNo overlap	GPT-5.252.9
Knowledge	GLM-4.6Not measured	MarginNo overlap	GPT-5.292.4
Multimodal	GLM-4.6Not measured	MarginNo overlap	GPT-5.280.4

Decisive benchmark drivers

The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.

A · GLM-4.6B · GPT-5.2

FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)
Math
Source ↗
A 3.819%B 40.700%
Winner: GPT-5.2Δ 36.9
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3): GLM-4.6 scored 3.819%; GPT-5.2 scored 40.700%. GPT-5.2 wins this benchmark.
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)
Math
Source ↗
A 2.128%B 18.800%
Winner: GPT-5.2Δ 16.7
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4): GLM-4.6 scored 2.128%; GPT-5.2 scored 18.800%. GPT-5.2 wins this benchmark.

Operational comparison

Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.

Metric	GLM-4.6	GPT-5.2	Comparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens	GLM-4.6Not available	GPT-5.2$1.75 input / $14 output	A complete price comparison is not available.
Generation speedtokens per second	GLM-4.6Not available	GPT-5.273 tok/s	A complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first token	GLM-4.6Not available	GPT-5.2130.34 s	A complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokens	GLM-4.6200K	GPT-5.2400K	GPT-5.2 lists the larger context window.

Benchmark Deep Dive

Agentic

5 benchmarks

Benchmark	GLM-4.6	GPT-5.2	Result
τ²-bench resultsSource	76.9%	84.8%	GPT-5.2 leads
BrowseCompSource	—	65.8%	Not comparable
OSWorld-VerifiedSource	—	47.3%	Not comparable
Gert LabsSource	—	46.54%	Not comparable
JobBenchSource	—	34.3%	Not comparable

Coding

4 benchmarks

Benchmark	GLM-4.6	GPT-5.2	Result
Vibe Code BenchSource	3.09%	53.50%	GPT-5.2 leads
AA-SciCodeSource	33.1%	52.1%	GPT-5.2 leads
SWE-bench VerifiedSource	—	80%	Not comparable
SWE-bench ProSource	—	55.6%	Not comparable

Reasoning

3 benchmarks

Benchmark	GLM-4.6	GPT-5.2	Result
AA-LCRSource	26.3%	72.7%	GPT-5.2 leads
CritPtSource	0.0%	11.6%	GPT-5.2 leads
ARC-AGI-2Source	—	52.9%	Not comparable

Knowledge

7 benchmarks

Benchmark	GLM-4.6	GPT-5.2	Result
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource	23.0%	42.2%	GPT-5.2 leads
AA-GPQA DiamondSource	63.2%	90.3%	GPT-5.2 leads
AA-HLESource	5.2%	35.4%	GPT-5.2 leads
AA-Omniscience IndexSource	-31.6%	-1.0%	GPT-5.2 leads
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource	20.8%	43.8%	GPT-5.2 leads
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource	66.1%	79.7%	GLM-4.6 leads
GPQASource	—	92.4%	Not comparable

MathGPT-5.2 wins

3 benchmarks

Benchmark	GLM-4.6	GPT-5.2	Result
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source	3.819%	40.700%	GPT-5.2 leads
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source	2.128%	18.800%	GPT-5.2 leads
AA AIME 2025Source	—	99.0%	Not comparable

Multimodal

5 benchmarks

Benchmark	GLM-4.6	GPT-5.2	Result
MMMU-ProSource	—	79.5%	Not comparable
MathVisionSource	—	83.0%	Not comparable
CharXivSource	—	82.1%	Not comparable
V*Source	—	75.9%	Not comparable
Design Arena WebsiteSource	—	1224	Not comparable

Inst. Following

1 benchmarks

Benchmark	GLM-4.6	GPT-5.2	Result
AA-IFBenchSource	36.7%	75.4%	GPT-5.2 leads

Frequently Asked Questions (2)

Which is better, GLM-4.6 or GPT-5.2?

GPT-5.2 is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 58.43 to 55.12. The biggest single separator in this matchup is FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3), where the scores are 3.819% and 40.700%.

Which is better for math, GLM-4.6 or GPT-5.2?

GPT-5.2 has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 35.2 versus 3.4. Inside this category, FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3) is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Related Comparisons

Explore More

Z.AI Compare Pricing Methodology Find Your Best LLM Overall Rankings

Last updated: July 23, 2026

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.