See key specs and per-benchmark scores for each model/mode. Scroll horizontally for all columns. 当前对比 2 个模型的评测数据与核心参数。
GLM-5.2
智谱AI
Best overall
GLM-5.2 · 84.03
Best single
GLM-5.2 · AIME 2026 99.20
Modality coverage
GLM-5.2 · 1 modalities
Head to head
4
Benchmarks
4
Wins
0
Losses
+6.13
Average diff
Compare benchmark results across thinking modes and tool usage.
Data sourced primarily from official releases (GitHub, Hugging Face, papers), then benchmark leaderboards, then third-party evaluators. Learn about our data methodology
Complete scores for each model/mode across selected benchmarks.
4 benchmarks with comparable scores. Each model shows its best score; mode label is displayed below.
| Benchmark | GLM-5.2 | GLM-5 |
|---|---|---|
GPQA Diamond 综合评估 | 91.20Thinking Enabled | 86.00Thinking Enabled |
HLE 综合评估 | 54.70Thinking Enabled ｜ Tools | 50.40Thinking Enabled ｜ Tools |
AIME 2026 数学推理 | 99.20Thinking Enabled | 92.70Thinking Enabled |
IMO-AnswerBench 数学推理 | 91.00Thinking Enabled | 82.50Thinking Enabled |
Side-by-side input/output token pricing
Licensing, MoE architecture, and multi-modality support.
| Features & specs | GLM-5.2智谱AI | GLM-5智谱AI |
|---|---|---|
Core specsRelease | 2026-06-13 | 2026-02-11 |
Context length | 1M | 200K |
Parameters | 7533.3 | 7440 |
Active parameters | 400 | 400 |
Max output | 128000 | 131072 |
MoE | Yes | Yes |
LicenseCode Open Source | Closed Source | Not provided |
Weights Open Source | Closed Source | Closed Source |
Commercial use | 免费商用授权 | 免费商用授权 |
Modality supportText Input/Output | / | / |
ResourcesPaper / report | GLM-5: from Vibe Coding to Agentic Engineering | GLM-5: From Vibe Coding to Agentic Engineering |
GLM-5
智谱AI
