Head-to-head comparison across 1benchmark categories. Overall scores shown here use BenchLM's provisional ranking lane.
GLM-5.2
94
Mistral Medium 3.5 128B
78
Verified leaderboard positions: GLM-5.2 #9 · Mistral Medium 3.5 128B unranked
Pick GLM-5.2 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Mistral Medium 3.5 128B only becomes the better choice if coding is the priority.
Coding
+15.5 difference
GLM-5.2
Mistral Medium 3.5 128B
$1.4 / $4.4
$1.5 / $7.5
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
1M
256K
Pick GLM-5.2 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Mistral Medium 3.5 128B only becomes the better choice if coding is the priority.
GLM-5.2 is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 94 to 78. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
Mistral Medium 3.5 128B is also the more expensive model on tokens at $1.50 input / $7.50 output per 1M tokens, versus $1.40 input / $4.40 output per 1M tokens for GLM-5.2. GLM-5.2 gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 256K for Mistral Medium 3.5 128B.
GLM-5.2 is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 94 to 78.
Mistral Medium 3.5 128B has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 77.6 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.