Head-to-head comparison across 2benchmark categories. Overall scores shown here use BenchLM's provisional ranking lane.
GLM-5.2
90
LongCat-2.0
80
Verified leaderboard positions: GLM-5.2 #9 · LongCat-2.0 unranked
Pick GLM-5.2 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. LongCat-2.0 only becomes the better choice if you want the cheaper token bill.
Agentic
+10.2 difference
Coding
+2.6 difference
GLM-5.2
LongCat-2.0
$1.4 / $4.4
$0.75 / $2.95
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
1M
1M
Pick GLM-5.2 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. LongCat-2.0 only becomes the better choice if you want the cheaper token bill.
GLM-5.2 is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 90 to 80. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
GLM-5.2's sharpest advantage is in agentic, where it averages 81 against 70.8. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is Terminal-Bench 2.0, 81% to 70.8%.
GLM-5.2 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $1.40 input / $4.40 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.75 input / $2.95 output per 1M tokens for LongCat-2.0.
GLM-5.2 is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 90 to 80. The biggest single separator in this matchup is Terminal-Bench 2.0, where the scores are 81% and 70.8%.
GLM-5.2 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 62.1 versus 59.5. Inside this category, Terminal-Bench 2.0 is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
GLM-5.2 has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 81 versus 70.8. Inside this category, Terminal-Bench 2.0 is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
For engineers, researchers, and the plain curious — a weekly brief on new models, ranking shifts, and pricing changes.
Free. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.