Model comparison
GLM-5 vs GPT-5.2-Codex
Head-to-head evidence from 12 shared benchmark results across 5 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: GLM-5 #28 (Supported); GPT-5.2-Codex #58 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. GLM-5 and GPT-5.2-Codex share 12 comparable benchmark results. 0 of 8 categories are comparable. 37 results are unique to GLM-5; 3 to GPT-5.2-Codex.
Updated July 20, 2026- Shared results
- 12
- GLM-5 only
- 37
- GPT-5.2-Codex only
- 3
- Comparable categories
- 0 / 8
Benchmark data for GLM-5 and GPT-5.2-Codex is coming soon on BenchLM.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 12 shared benchmark results across 5 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.
GPT-5.2-Codex is priced at $1.75 input / $14.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $1.00 input / $3.20 output per 1M tokens for GLM-5. GPT-5.2-Codex has the larger context window at 400K, compared with 200K for GLM-5.
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 | Δ | GPT-5.2-Codex |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agentic | GLM-556.2 | MarginNo overlap | GPT-5.2-CodexNot measured |
| Coding | GLM-566.3 | MarginNo overlap | GPT-5.2-CodexNot measured |
| Reasoning | GLM-560.8 | MarginNo overlap | GPT-5.2-CodexNot measured |
| Knowledge | GLM-566.4 | MarginNo overlap | GPT-5.2-CodexNot measured |
| Math | GLM-556.3 | MarginNo overlap | GPT-5.2-CodexNot measured |
| Multilingual | GLM-583.1 | MarginNo overlap | GPT-5.2-CodexNot measured |
| Inst. Following | GLM-592.6 | MarginNo overlap | GPT-5.2-CodexNot measured |
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | GLM-5 | GPT-5.2-Codex | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | GLM-5$1 input / $3.2 output | GPT-5.2-Codex$1.75 input / $14 output | GLM-5 has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | GLM-574 tok/s | GPT-5.2-Codex123 tok/s | GPT-5.2-Codex has the higher measured throughput. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | GLM-51.64 s | GPT-5.2-Codex87.34 s | GLM-5 reaches the first token sooner. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | GLM-5200K | GPT-5.2-Codex400K | GPT-5.2-Codex lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic14 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GLM-5 | GPT-5.2-Codex | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 56.2% | — | Not comparable |
| Claw-EvalSource | 57.7% | — | Not comparable |
| QwenClawBenchSource | 54.1% | — | Not comparable |
| τ³-bench resultsSource | 65.6% | — | Not comparable |
| DeepPlanningSource | 14.6% | — | Not comparable |
| ToolathlonSource | 38% | — | Not comparable |
| MCP AtlasSource | 31.1% | — | Not comparable |
| MCP-TasksSource | 60.8% | — | Not comparable |
| WideResearchSource | 69.8% | — | Not comparable |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | 98.2% | 92.1% | GLM-5 leads |
| CyberGymSource | 43.2% | — | Not comparable |
| APEX-Agents-AASource | 14.5% | — | Not comparable |
| Gert LabsSource | 50.99% | 51.79% | GPT-5.2-Codex leads |
| JobBenchSource | — | 26.0% | Not comparable |
Coding8 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GLM-5 | GPT-5.2-Codex | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench VerifiedSource | 77.8% | — | Not comparable |
| SWE-bench Verified*Source | 72.8% | — | Not comparable |
| SWE-bench ProSource | 55.1% | — | Not comparable |
| SWE MultilingualSource | 73.3% | — | Not comparable |
| SWE-RebenchSource | 62.8% | — | Not comparable |
| React Native EvalsSource | 74.8% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 46.2% | 54.6% | GPT-5.2-Codex leads |
| Vibe Code BenchSource | — | 37.91% | Not comparable |
Reasoning4 benchmarks
Knowledge12 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GLM-5 | GPT-5.2-Codex | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQASource | 86% | — | Not comparable |
| GPQA-DSource | 86.0% | — | Not comparable |
| SuperGPQASource | 66.8% | — | Not comparable |
| MMLU-ProSource | 85.7% | — | Not comparable |
| MMLU-Pro (Arcee)Source | 85.8% | — | Not comparable |
| HLESource | 50.4% | — | Not comparable |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 39.5% | 40.1% | GPT-5.2-Codex leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 82.0% | 89.9% | GPT-5.2-Codex leads |
| AA-HLESource | 27.2% | 33.5% | GPT-5.2-Codex leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | 2.0% | -2.5% | GLM-5 leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 26.9% | 40.7% | GPT-5.2-Codex leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 34.0% | 72.8% | GLM-5 leads |
Math8 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GLM-5 | GPT-5.2-Codex | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AIME26Source | 95.8% | — | Not comparable |
| AIME25 (Arcee)Source | 93.3% | — | Not comparable |
| HMMT Feb 2025Source | 97.5% | — | Not comparable |
| HMMT Nov 2025Source | 96.9% | — | Not comparable |
| HMMT Feb 2026Source | 86.4% | — | Not comparable |
| MMAnswerBenchSource | 82.5% | — | Not comparable |
| FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source | 16.434% | — | Not comparable |
| FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source | 2.100% | — | Not comparable |
Multilingual2 benchmarks
Multimodal2 benchmarks
Frequently Asked Questions (3)
Can I compare GLM-5 and GPT-5.2-Codex 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 and GPT-5.2-Codex today?
GLM-5: $1.00 input / $3.20 output per 1M tokens GPT-5.2-Codex: $1.75 input / $14.00 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.