Model comparison
GLM-5.2 vs Soofi S 30B-A3B
Head-to-head evidence from 2 shared benchmark results across 1 category. Overall scores shown here use BenchLM's provisional ranking lane.
Verified leaderboard positions: GLM-5.2 #4; Soofi S 30B-A3B unranked
Evidence parity. GLM-5.2 and Soofi S 30B-A3B share 2 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 41 results are unique to GLM-5.2; 6 to Soofi S 30B-A3B.
Updated July 15, 2026- Shared results
- 2
- GLM-5.2 only
- 41
- Soofi S 30B-A3B only
- 6
- Comparable categories
- 1 / 8
Pick GLM-5.2 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Soofi S 30B-A3B only becomes the better choice if you want the cheaper token bill or you would rather avoid the extra latency and token burn of a reasoning model.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 2 shared benchmark results across 1 evidence category; 1 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.
Why this result
GLM-5.2 is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 81 to 45. 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 59.6 against 49.9. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is GPQA, 91.2% to 43.4%.
GLM-5.2 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $1.40 input / $4.40 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.00 input / $0.00 output per 1M tokens for Soofi S 30B-A3B. That is roughly Infinityx on output cost alone. GLM-5.2 is the reasoning model in the pair, while Soofi S 30B-A3B is not. That usually helps on harder chain-of-thought-heavy tests, but it can also mean more latency and more token spend in real use.
Category breakdown
Exact category averages are shown below. Not measured means BenchLM does not have enough sourced public coverage for that model and category.
| Category | GLM-5.2 | Δ | Soofi S 30B-A3B |
|---|---|---|---|
| Knowledge | GLM-5.259.6 | Margin← 9.7 | Soofi S 30B-A3B49.9 |
| Agentic | GLM-5.281.0 | MarginNo overlap | Soofi S 30B-A3BNot measured |
| Coding | GLM-5.262.1 | MarginNo overlap | Soofi S 30B-A3BNot measured |
| Math | GLM-5.295.9 | MarginNo overlap | Soofi S 30B-A3BNot measured |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
GPQA
KnowledgeA 91.2%B 43.4%Winner: GLM-5.2Δ 47.8GPQA: GLM-5.2 scored 91.2%; Soofi S 30B-A3B scored 43.4%. GLM-5.2 wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | GLM-5.2 | Soofi S 30B-A3B | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | GLM-5.2$1.4 input / $4.4 output | Soofi S 30B-A3B$0 input / $0 output | Soofi S 30B-A3B has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | GLM-5.2Not available | Soofi S 30B-A3BNot available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | GLM-5.2Not available | Soofi S 30B-A3BNot available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | GLM-5.21M | Soofi S 30B-A3B1M | Listed context windows are equal. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic15 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GLM-5.2 | Soofi S 30B-A3B | 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 | 7.5% | — | Not comparable |
| AA ITBenchSource | 42.7% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Tau3 BankingSource | 26.8% | — | Not comparable |
Coding10 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GLM-5.2 | Soofi S 30B-A3B | 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 |
| Terminal-Bench HardSource | 50.8% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 50.5% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Terminal-Bench 2.1Source | 77.9% | — | Not comparable |
| HumanEvalSource | — | 73.8% | Not comparable |
Reasoning4 benchmarks
KnowledgeGLM-5.2 wins13 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GLM-5.2 | Soofi S 30B-A3B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQASource | 91.2% | 43.4% | GLM-5.2 leads |
| GPQA-DSource | 91.2% | 43.4% | GLM-5.2 leads |
| 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 |
| MMLU-ProSource | — | 51.4% | Not comparable |
| AGIEvalSource | — | 66.9% | Not comparable |
Math5 benchmarks
Multimodal1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GLM-5.2 | Soofi S 30B-A3B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Design Arena WebsiteSource | 1345 | — | Not comparable |
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GLM-5.2 | Soofi S 30B-A3B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | 73.3% | — | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (2)
Which is better, GLM-5.2 or Soofi S 30B-A3B?
GLM-5.2 is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 81 to 45. The biggest single separator in this matchup is GPQA, where the scores are 91.2% and 43.4%.
Which is better for knowledge tasks, GLM-5.2 or Soofi S 30B-A3B?
GLM-5.2 has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 59.6 versus 49.9. Inside this category, GPQA is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Related Comparisons
Explore More
The AI models change fast. We track them for you.
A weekly brief for engineers and researchers covering new models, ranking shifts, and pricing changes.
Free. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.