Skip to main content
BenchLM
Advertise

Model comparison

GLM-5.2 vs Step 3.7 Flash

Updated July 31, 2026. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. They are not guarantees for a specific workload.

21 confirmed releases in the last 30 daystrack changes
GLM-5.2

Z.AI

62.9/100

Estimated · Public rank #41

90% interval 47.7–78.2

Step 3.7 Flash

StepFun

49.9/100

Estimated · Public rank #118

90% interval 38.4–61.4

GLM-5.2 has the higher public score estimate, 62.94 versus 49.88, but the 90% score intervals overlap. Treat that as a lead, not a settled winner.

4 results are shared. Category rows based on different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.

Which one for your work

Recommendations appear only when a shared evidence basis or an explicit operating constraint supports the call. Secondary and unsupported use cases stay disclosed below the initial list.

  • Coding work

    Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks

    GLM-5.2

    GLM-5.2 leads on the same 1 weighted benchmark row.

    Confidence: limited

  • Long documents

    Prompts that approach the documented context limit

    GLM-5.2

    GLM-5.2 has the larger documented context window.

    Confidence: documented

  • Chat turn cost

    1K fresh input + 500 output tokens

    Step 3.7 Flash

    Step 3.7 Flash has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.

    Confidence: listed-rates

Show secondary and unsupported calls

  • Cache-heavy agent loop cost

    200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens

    Step 3.7 Flash

    Step 3.7 Flash has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. GLM-5.2 has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate. Step 3.7 Flash has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.

    Confidence: rate-fallback

  • Repository review cost

    50K fresh input + 3K output tokens

    Step 3.7 Flash

    Step 3.7 Flash has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.

    Confidence: listed-rates

  • Agentic work

    Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion

    Not enough matched evidence

    The category averages use different weighted benchmark sets, so they are directional rather than like-for-like.

    Confidence: limited

What is actually comparable

Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results present for only one model describe coverage, not superiority.

Shared results
4
GLM-5.2 only
14
Step 3.7 Flash only
7
Like-for-like categories
1 / 8

1 category uses different evidence sets. Those rows remain visible for coverage context but do not name a winner.

Category results, on a stated basis

Each row states whether both averages use the same weighted benchmark set. Directional and not-comparable rows remain visible, but they never receive a winner in this template.

Coding

Like-for-like
GLM-5.2
62.1
Step 3.7 Flash
56.3
Weighted basis
1 vs 1 rows
Reading
GLM-5.2 leads

Agentic

Directional only
GLM-5.2
81.0
Step 3.7 Flash
66.4
Weighted basis
1 vs 2 rows
Reading
Directional only

Reasoning

Not comparable
GLM-5.2
Not measured
Step 3.7 Flash
Not measured
Weighted basis
0 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Knowledge

Not comparable
GLM-5.2
59.6
Step 3.7 Flash
Not measured
Weighted basis
2 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Math

Not comparable
GLM-5.2
95.9
Step 3.7 Flash
Not measured
Weighted basis
2 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multilingual

Not comparable
GLM-5.2
Not measured
Step 3.7 Flash
Not measured
Weighted basis
0 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multimodal

Not comparable
GLM-5.2
Not measured
Step 3.7 Flash
Not measured
Weighted basis
0 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Instruction following

Not comparable
GLM-5.2
Not measured
Step 3.7 Flash
Not measured
Weighted basis
0 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Shape of the matched evidence

Only shared public evidence is shown. Sparse evidence stays a ruled list rather than being closed into a radar shape.

Too few matched category axes support a radar. The ruled list below shows only shared benchmark results; positions use each benchmark’s normalized display scale when available.

What each workload costs

Three fixed token mixes turn per-token rates into comparable decisions. Each scenario states context fit and whether cached input had to fall back to the published list-input rate.

Chat turn

1K fresh input + 500 output tokens

GLM-5.2
$0.0036
Fits in one request
Step 3.7 Flash
$0.00077
Fits in one request

Step 3.7 Flash has the lower modeled cost

Costs use the listed standard API rates.

Repository review

50K fresh input + 3K output tokens

GLM-5.2
$0.0832
Fits in one request
Step 3.7 Flash
$0.01345
Fits in one request

Step 3.7 Flash has the lower modeled cost

Costs use the listed standard API rates.

Cache-heavy agent loop

200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens

GLM-5.2
$0.352
Fits in one request
Cached input priced at the published list-input rate
Step 3.7 Flash
$0.0555
Fits in one request
Cached input priced at the published list-input rate

Step 3.7 Flash has the lower modeled cost

GLM-5.2 has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate. Step 3.7 Flash has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.

Specification differences

Sourced differences are shown directly. Missing facts stay explicit instead of being inferred from a model name or family.

Context window

Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.

GLM-5.2

1M

Step 3.7 Flash

256K

API model ID

GLM-5.2

Not sourced

Step 3.7 Flash

Not sourced

Cached-input rate

A missing cached-input rate falls back to the listed input rate only in the stated workload estimate.

GLM-5.2

Not published

Step 3.7 Flash

Not published

Documented inputs

GLM-5.2

Not sourced

Step 3.7 Flash

Not sourced

Documented outputs

GLM-5.2

Not sourced

Step 3.7 Flash

Not sourced

Provider availability

GLM-5.2

Not sourced

Step 3.7 Flash

Not sourced

Reasoning profile

GLM-5.2

Reasoning

Step 3.7 Flash

Reasoning

Weight access

GLM-5.2

Open Weight

Step 3.7 Flash

Open Weight

License

GLM-5.2

Open Weight

Step 3.7 Flash

Open Weight

Release date

GLM-5.2

2026-06-16

Step 3.7 Flash

2026-05-29

If you already use one of these models
Deployment change
The models list different providers, so authentication, endpoint behavior, limits, and feature support may change.
Quality signal
GLM-5.2 has the higher public score estimate, 62.94 versus 49.88, but the 90% score intervals overlap.
Workload cost
Repository review: $0.0832 vs $0.01345. Cache-heavy agent loop: $0.352 vs $0.0555.
Context tradeoff
GLM-5.2 has the larger documented window (1M).

Run the same representative tasks against both endpoints before changing production traffic.

Benchmark evidence

The full public result ledger is available for audit without forcing a wide desktop table onto a phone.

Browse raw public benchmark evidence25 rows

Agentic

  • Terminal-Bench 2.0

    GLM-5.281%
    Source
    Step 3.7 Flash59.5%
    Source

    GLM-5.2 leads this result

  • MCP Atlas

    GLM-5.276.8%
    Source
    Step 3.7 Flash—

    Not directly comparable

  • Toolathlon

    GLM-5.248.2%
    Source
    Step 3.7 Flash49.5%
    Source

    Step 3.7 Flash leads this result

  • ResearchClawBench

    GLM-5.220.7%
    Source
    Step 3.7 Flash—

    Not directly comparable

  • BrowseComp

    GLM-5.2—
    Step 3.7 Flash75.8%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • DeepSearchQA

    GLM-5.2—
    Step 3.7 Flash92.8%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • Claw-Eval

    GLM-5.2—
    Step 3.7 Flash67.1%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • HLE w/ tools

    GLM-5.2—
    Step 3.7 Flash47.2%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • Gert Labs

    GLM-5.2—
    Step 3.7 Flash51.57%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Coding

  • SWE-bench Pro

    GLM-5.262.1%
    Source
    Step 3.7 Flash56.3%
    Source

    GLM-5.2 leads this result

  • NL2Repo

    GLM-5.248.9%
    Source
    Step 3.7 Flash—

    Not directly comparable

  • Terminal-Bench 2.0

    GLM-5.281.0%
    Source
    Step 3.7 Flash59.5%
    Source

    GLM-5.2 leads this result

  • ProgramBench

    GLM-5.263.7%
    Source
    Step 3.7 Flash—

    Not directly comparable

  • cursorBench32

    GLM-5.255.0%
    Source
    Step 3.7 Flash—

    Not directly comparable

Reasoning

  • CritPt

    GLM-5.220.9%
    Source
    Step 3.7 Flash—

    Not directly comparable

Knowledge

  • GPQA

    GLM-5.291.2%
    Source
    Step 3.7 Flash—

    Not directly comparable

  • GPQA-D

    GLM-5.291.2%
    Source
    Step 3.7 Flash—

    Not directly comparable

  • HLE

    GLM-5.254.7%
    Source
    Step 3.7 Flash—

    Not directly comparable

  • HLE w/o tools

    GLM-5.240.5%
    Source
    Step 3.7 Flash—

    Not directly comparable

Math

  • AIME26

    GLM-5.299.2%
    Source
    Step 3.7 Flash—

    Not directly comparable

  • HMMT Nov 2025

    GLM-5.294.4%
    Source
    Step 3.7 Flash—

    Not directly comparable

  • HMMT Feb 2026

    GLM-5.292.5%
    Source
    Step 3.7 Flash—

    Not directly comparable

  • MMAnswerBench

    GLM-5.291.0%
    Source
    Step 3.7 Flash—

    Not directly comparable

Multimodal

  • SimpleVQA

    GLM-5.2—
    Step 3.7 Flash79.2%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • V*

    GLM-5.2—
    Step 3.7 Flash95.3%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Frequently asked questions

Which is better, GLM-5.2 or Step 3.7 Flash?

GLM-5.2 has the higher public score estimate, 62.94 versus 49.88, but the 90% score intervals overlap. The higher estimate is not a decisive winner because the uncertainty ranges overlap.

Which is better for coding, GLM-5.2 or Step 3.7 Flash?

GLM-5.2 leads the like-for-like coding comparison across 1 shared weighted benchmark row.

Which is better for agentic tasks, GLM-5.2 or Step 3.7 Flash?

The current agentic tasks averages use different weighted benchmark sets, so BenchLM does not name a winner from them. Read the shared benchmark rows directly and test the models on the same task set.

Which costs less, GLM-5.2 or Step 3.7 Flash?

For the stated presets, chat costs $0.0036 on GLM-5.2 and $0.00077 on Step 3.7 Flash; repository review costs $0.0832 and $0.01345; the cache-heavy agent loop costs $0.352 and $0.0555. GLM-5.2 has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate. Step 3.7 Flash has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.

Which has the larger context window, GLM-5.2 or Step 3.7 Flash?

GLM-5.2 has the larger documented context window: 1M, compared with 256K.

Related comparisons

Compare API pricing Read the methodology Open the model selector

Last updated July 31, 2026

Watch GLM-5.2 vs Step 3.7 Flash

One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.

Read a sample issue

Join 2,000+ readers.