Head-to-head comparison across 2benchmark categories. Overall scores shown here use BenchLM's provisional ranking lane.
GLM-5.2
94
Step 3.7 Flash
70
Verified leaderboard positions: GLM-5.2 #9 · Step 3.7 Flash unranked
Pick GLM-5.2 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Step 3.7 Flash only becomes the better choice if you want the cheaper token bill.
Agentic
+15.1 difference
Coding
+5.8 difference
GLM-5.2
Step 3.7 Flash
$1.4 / $4.4
$0.2 / $1.15
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
1M
256K
Pick GLM-5.2 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Step 3.7 Flash only becomes the better choice if you want the cheaper token bill.
GLM-5.2 is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 94 to 70. 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 65.9. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is Terminal-Bench 2.0, 81% to 59.5%.
GLM-5.2 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $1.40 input / $4.40 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.20 input / $1.15 output per 1M tokens for Step 3.7 Flash. That is roughly 3.8x on output cost alone. GLM-5.2 gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 256K for Step 3.7 Flash.
GLM-5.2 is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 94 to 70. The biggest single separator in this matchup is Terminal-Bench 2.0, where the scores are 81% and 59.5%.
GLM-5.2 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 62.1 versus 56.3. 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 65.9. 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.