Head-to-head comparison across 2benchmark categories. Overall scores shown here use BenchLM's provisional ranking lane.
GLM-5.2
94
Mellum2-12B-A2.5B-Thinking
59
Verified leaderboard positions: GLM-5.2 #9 · Mellum2-12B-A2.5B-Thinking unranked
Pick GLM-5.2 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Mellum2-12B-A2.5B-Thinking only becomes the better choice if coding is the priority.
Coding
+7.8 difference
Knowledge
+9.6 difference
GLM-5.2
Mellum2-12B-A2.5B-Thinking
$1.4 / $4.4
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
1M
128K
Pick GLM-5.2 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Mellum2-12B-A2.5B-Thinking only becomes the better choice if coding is the priority.
GLM-5.2 is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 94 to 59. 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 knowledge, where it averages 67.2 against 57.6. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is GPQA, 91.2% to 57.6%. Mellum2-12B-A2.5B-Thinking does hit back in coding, so the answer changes if that is the part of the workload you care about most.
GLM-5.2 gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 128K for Mellum2-12B-A2.5B-Thinking.
GLM-5.2 is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 94 to 59. The biggest single separator in this matchup is GPQA, where the scores are 91.2% and 57.6%.
GLM-5.2 has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 67.2 versus 57.6. Inside this category, GPQA is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Mellum2-12B-A2.5B-Thinking has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 69.9 versus 62.1. GLM-5.2 stays close enough that the answer can still flip depending on your workload.
For engineers, researchers, and the plain curious — a weekly brief on new models, ranking shifts, and pricing changes.
Free. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.