Model comparison
GLM-5.2 vs Fugu Cyber
Head-to-head evidence from 0 shared benchmark results across 0 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: GLM-5.2 #37 (Estimated); Fugu Cyber unranked (Not scored). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. GLM-5.2 and Fugu Cyber share 0 comparable benchmark results. 0 of 8 categories are comparable. 43 results are unique to GLM-5.2; 2 to Fugu Cyber.
Updated July 21, 2026- Shared results
- 0
- GLM-5.2 only
- 43
- Fugu Cyber only
- 2
- Comparable categories
- 0 / 8
Benchmark data for GLM-5.2 and Fugu Cyber is coming soon on BenchLM.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 0 shared benchmark results across 0 evidence categories; 0 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.
Why this result
BenchLM has partial data for these models, but not enough overlapping benchmark coverage to produce a fair score-level comparison yet.
Fugu Cyber is priced at $6.00 input / $36.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $1.40 input / $4.40 output per 1M tokens for GLM-5.2.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | GLM-5.2 | Fugu Cyber | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | GLM-5.2$1.4 input / $4.4 output | Fugu Cyber$6 input / $36 output | GLM-5.2 has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | GLM-5.2Not available | Fugu CyberNot available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | GLM-5.2Not available | Fugu CyberNot available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | GLM-5.21M | Fugu Cyber1M | Listed context windows are equal. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic19 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GLM-5.2 | Fugu Cyber | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 81% | — | Not comparable |
| MCP AtlasSource | 76.8% | — | Not comparable |
| ToolathlonSource | 48.2% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | 43.1% | — | Not comparable |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | 99.1% | — | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | 50.7% | — | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | 1514 | — | Not comparable |
| APEX-Agents-AASource | 33.7% | — | Not comparable |
| ResearchClawBenchSource | 20.7% | — | Not comparable |
| AA BriefcaseSource | 1260 | — | Not comparable |
| AA AutomationBenchSource | 27.8% | — | Not comparable |
| AA EnterpriseOps-GymSource | 42.7% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Harvey LABSource | 91.0% | — | Not comparable |
| AA ITBenchSource | 42.7% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Tau3 BankingSource | 26.8% | — | Not comparable |
| terminalBenchHardSource | 50.8% | — | Not comparable |
| aaTerminalBench21Source | 77.9% | — | Not comparable |
| CyberGymSource | — | 86.9% | Not comparable |
| CTI-REALMSource | — | 72.1% | Not comparable |
Coding7 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GLM-5.2 | Fugu Cyber | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench ProSource | 62.1% | — | Not comparable |
| NL2RepoSource | 48.9% | — | Not comparable |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 81.0% | — | Not comparable |
| ProgramBenchSource | 63.7% | — | Not comparable |
| cursorBench32Source | 55.0% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Coding IndexSource | 68.8% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 50.5% | — | Not comparable |
Reasoning2 benchmarks
Knowledge11 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GLM-5.2 | Fugu Cyber | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQASource | 91.2% | — | Not comparable |
| GPQA-DSource | 91.2% | — | Not comparable |
| HLESource | 54.7% | — | Not comparable |
| HLE w/o toolsSource | 40.5% | — | Not comparable |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 51.1% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 89.5% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-HLESource | 40.1% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | 4.0% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 25.1% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 28.1% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Openness IndexSource | 44.4% | — | Not comparable |
Math4 benchmarks
Multimodal1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GLM-5.2 | Fugu Cyber | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Design Arena WebsiteSource | 1340 | — | Not comparable |
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GLM-5.2 | Fugu Cyber | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | 73.3% | — | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (3)
Can I compare GLM-5.2 and Fugu Cyber on BenchLM yet?
Not fully yet. BenchLM is tracking both models, but the sourced benchmark breakdown for this comparison is still coming soon.
Why does this comparison show “coming soon”?
BenchLM only shows category winners and benchmark-level calls when we have sourced results that can be compared fairly. For these models, the public benchmark coverage is not complete enough yet.
What data is available for GLM-5.2 and Fugu Cyber today?
GLM-5.2: $1.40 input / $4.40 output per 1M tokens Fugu Cyber: $6.00 input / $36.00 output per 1M tokens Both model pages still include creator, context window, reasoning mode, and other metadata while benchmark coverage fills in.
Related Comparisons
Explore More
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.