Head-to-head comparison across 3benchmark categories. Overall scores shown here use BenchLM's provisional ranking lane.
GLM-5.2
94
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B
65
Verified leaderboard positions: GLM-5.2 #9 · Qwen3.6-35B-A3B #29
Pick GLM-5.2 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Qwen3.6-35B-A3B only becomes the better choice if coding is the priority.
Agentic
+29.5 difference
Coding
+4.8 difference
Knowledge
+6.7 difference
GLM-5.2
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B
$1.4 / $4.4
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
1M
262K
Pick GLM-5.2 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Qwen3.6-35B-A3B only becomes the better choice if coding is the priority.
GLM-5.2 is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 94 to 65. 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 51.5. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is HLE, 54.7% to 21.4%. Qwen3.6-35B-A3B 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 262K for Qwen3.6-35B-A3B.
GLM-5.2 is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 94 to 65. The biggest single separator in this matchup is HLE, where the scores are 54.7% and 21.4%.
GLM-5.2 has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 67.2 versus 60.5. Inside this category, HLE is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 66.9 versus 62.1. 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 51.5. 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.