Gemini 2.5 Flash vs GLM 5.2
Updated October 21, 2026. 51 benchmarks have a result for both. Coding is ranked on the Vibe Coding Index; every other board is shown as published.
Decision reading
Pick GLM 5.2 for coding: it scores 57.7 on the Vibe Coding Index against 28.7 for Gemini 2.5 Flash.
Pick Gemini 2.5 Flash when output tokens cost 2.8x less, or when a solved task costs $0.466 against $0.86.
- Shared results
- 51
- Gemini 2.5 Flash only
- 18
- GLM 5.2 only
- 46
- Like-for-like categories
- 8 of 9
Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results only one model has describe coverage, not superiority.
Which one for your work
Each card is decided by one number both models carry. Where only one has it, the card says so and makes no call.
Coding
Vibe Coding Index, four public coding benchmarks
GLM 5.2
GLM 5.2 scores 57.7 against 28.7.
One benchmark behind each score
Intelligence
AA Intelligence Index
GLM 5.2
GLM 5.2 leads, 33.7 against 15.5.
Same board, both measured
Agentic work
AA Agentic Index
No call
Only GLM 5.2 has a AA Agentic Index result, 38.4.
Directional only
Reasoning
GPQA Diamond
No call
Only GLM 5.2 has a GPQA Diamond result, 85.6%.
Directional only
Knowledge
MMLU Pro
No call
Only GLM 5.2 has a MMLU Pro result, 86.7%.
Directional only
Web design
Design Arena: websites
GLM 5.2
GLM 5.2 leads, 1285 against 1074.
Same board, both measured
Long documents
Listed context window
No call
Both take 1.05M tokens.
Listed by OpenRouter
Everyday cost
1K input + 500 output tokens
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash $0.0015, GLM 5.2 $0.0035 per turn.
List prices
Cost per solved task
One SWE-bench Verified task, solved
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash $0.466, GLM 5.2 $0.86.
Published attempt cost and pass rate
At a glance
- Coding index
- Gemini 2.5 Flash 28.7 from 1 benchmark, GLM 5.2 57.7 from 1 benchmark.
- Widest category
- Agentic work, 58.0 points apart on average over 2 shared benchmarks.
- Widest single gap
- τ²-Bench Telecom: Gemini 2.5 Flash 31.6% against GLM 5.2 99.1%, 67.5 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
- Output price
- Gemini 2.5 Flash $2.50 against GLM 5.2 $7.00 per million output tokens, 2.8x apart.
- Context window
- Both take 1.05M tokens.
Benchmark by benchmark
First the score: boards each model leads, per category, where both have a result. Then every board, a category to a fold; bars are each result on a 0 to 100 scale, so compare the two in a row, not one row with another.
| Category | Gemini 2.5 Flash | Bars | GLM 5.2 | Ties |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | 0 | 3 | ||
| Intelligence | 0 | 2 | ||
| Agentic work | 0 | 2 | ||
| Reasoning | 0 | 8 | ||
| Math | 0 | 2 | ||
| Knowledge | 0 | 5 | ||
| Web design | 0 | 7 | ||
| General | 0 | 22 | ||
| All shared boards | 0 | 51 |
CodingLike-for-likeFour of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index03
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash | GLM 5.2 | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench Verified | 28.7% | Not measured | Only Gemini 2.5 Flash measured |
| LMArena WebDev | Not measured | 1604 | Only GLM 5.2 measured |
| AA Coding Index | Not measured | 68.8 | Only GLM 5.2 measured |
| LiveCodeBench (Vals AI) | Not measured | 69.5% | Only GLM 5.2 measured |
| SWE-bench Verified (Vals AI) | Not measured | 82.8% | Only GLM 5.2 measured |
| Vibe Code Bench (Vals AI) | Not measured | 64.0% | Only GLM 5.2 measured |
| Code migration (Vals AI) | Not measured | 37.9% | Only GLM 5.2 measured |
| ProgramBench (Vals AI) | Not measured | 0.5% | Only GLM 5.2 measured |
| Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals AI) | Not measured | 67.8% | Only GLM 5.2 measured |
| SkillsBench (Vals AI) | Not measured | 45.1% | Only GLM 5.2 measured |
| LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run) | 69.5% | Not measured | Only Gemini 2.5 Flash measured |
| SciCode | Not measured | 51.2% | Only GLM 5.2 measured |
| Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run) | 13.6% | 50.8% | GLM 5.2 |
| Terminal-Bench | 17.1% | Not measured | Only Gemini 2.5 Flash measured |
| FrontierCode | Not measured | 24.5% | Only GLM 5.2 measured |
| WeirdML | Not measured | 70.1% | Only GLM 5.2 measured |
| ALE-Bench | Not measured | 1047.0 | Only GLM 5.2 measured |
| LMArena Text: coding | 1423 | 1487 | GLM 5.2 |
| LMArena Text: software and IT | 1425 | 1486 | GLM 5.2 |
| LMArena WebDev: React | Not measured | 1617 | Only GLM 5.2 measured |
| LMArena WebDev: HTML | Not measured | 1565 | Only GLM 5.2 measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 17 boards here | |||
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index02
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash | GLM 5.2 | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Intelligence Index | 15.5 | 33.7 | GLM 5.2 |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 142.9 | 151.9 | GLM 5.2 |
Agentic workLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index02
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash | GLM 5.2 | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Agentic Index | Not measured | 38.4 | Only GLM 5.2 measured |
| Design Arena: agents building web apps | Not measured | 1222 | Only GLM 5.2 measured |
| Design Arena: agents building full-stack apps | Not measured | 1241 | Only GLM 5.2 measured |
| Design Arena: agents building mobile apps | Not measured | 1160 | Only GLM 5.2 measured |
| Design Arena: agents building Android apps | Not measured | 1184 | Only GLM 5.2 measured |
| Design Arena: agents building Godot games | Not measured | 1142 | Only GLM 5.2 measured |
| Design Arena: agents building games | Not measured | 1206 | Only GLM 5.2 measured |
| Design Arena: HTML slides | Not measured | 1175 | Only GLM 5.2 measured |
| Design Arena: PowerPoint slides | Not measured | 1195 | Only GLM 5.2 measured |
| SREBench (Vals AI) | Not measured | 0.0% | Only GLM 5.2 measured |
| Finance Agent (Vals AI) | Not measured | 49.7% | Only GLM 5.2 measured |
| Legal Research Bench (Vals AI) | Not measured | 31.3% | Only GLM 5.2 measured |
| Excel Modeling Benchmark (Vals AI) | Not measured | 61.5% | Only GLM 5.2 measured |
| τ²-Bench Telecom | 31.6% | 99.1% | GLM 5.2 |
| APEX-Agents | Not measured | 45.2% | Only GLM 5.2 measured |
| BALROG | 33.5% | Not measured | Only Gemini 2.5 Flash measured |
| PostTrainBench | Not measured | 31.7% | Only GLM 5.2 measured |
| Vending-Bench 2 | $549 | $8,314 | GLM 5.2 |
| Neither model has a result on the other 21 boards here | |||
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index08
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash | GLM 5.2 | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | Not measured | 85.6% | Only GLM 5.2 measured |
| GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run) | 79.0% | 89.5% | GLM 5.2 |
| Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run) | 12.1% | 41.1% | GLM 5.2 |
| GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run) | Not measured | 91.9% | Only GLM 5.2 measured |
| ARC-AGI | 33.3% | 77.0% | GLM 5.2 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 2.5% | 22.8% | GLM 5.2 |
| SimpleBench | 41.2% | 58.8% | GLM 5.2 |
| Chess puzzles | Not measured | 22.0% | Only GLM 5.2 measured |
| Mystery game puzzles | Not measured | 19.0% | Only GLM 5.2 measured |
| EBR-bench | Not measured | 9.5% | Only GLM 5.2 measured |
| LMArena Text: hard prompts | 1422 | 1481 | GLM 5.2 |
| LMArena Text: expert | 1426 | 1487 | GLM 5.2 |
| LMArena Text: hard prompts in English | 1420 | 1481 | GLM 5.2 |
| LMArena Vision: diagrams | 1245 | Not measured | Only Gemini 2.5 Flash measured |
| LMArena Vision: homework | 1244 | Not measured | Only Gemini 2.5 Flash measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 6 boards here | |||
MathLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index02
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash | GLM 5.2 | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Math Index | 73.3 | Not measured | Only Gemini 2.5 Flash measured |
| AIME 2025 (Artificial Analysis run) | 73.3% | Not measured | Only Gemini 2.5 Flash measured |
| OTIS Mock AIME | Not measured | 86.4% | Only GLM 5.2 measured |
| FrontierMath, tiers 1 to 3 | Not measured | 59.2% | Only GLM 5.2 measured |
| FrontierMath, tier 4 | Not measured | 29.3% | Only GLM 5.2 measured |
| ProofBench | Not measured | 35.0% | Only GLM 5.2 measured |
| LMArena Text: math | 1411 | 1483 | GLM 5.2 |
| LMArena Text: mathematical work | 1422 | 1489 | GLM 5.2 |
| Neither model has a result on the other 5 boards here | |||
KnowledgeLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index05
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash | GLM 5.2 | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMLU Pro | Not measured | 86.7% | Only GLM 5.2 measured |
| LegalBench (Vals AI) | Not measured | 84.1% | Only GLM 5.2 measured |
| CorpFin (Vals AI) | Not measured | 66.1% | Only GLM 5.2 measured |
| TaxEval (Vals AI) | Not measured | 73.3% | Only GLM 5.2 measured |
| MedCode (Vals AI) | 40.4% | 40.8% | GLM 5.2 |
| MMLU Pro (Artificial Analysis run) | 83.2% | Not measured | Only Gemini 2.5 Flash measured |
| SimpleQA Verified | Not measured | 34.2% | Only GLM 5.2 measured |
| LMArena Text: science | 1433 | 1489 | GLM 5.2 |
| LMArena Text: medicine and healthcare | 1428 | 1475 | GLM 5.2 |
| LMArena Text: legal and government | 1430 | 1486 | GLM 5.2 |
| LMArena Text: business and finance | 1404 | 1451 | GLM 5.2 |
| Neither model has a result on the other 6 boards here | |||
Web designLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index07
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash | GLM 5.2 | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Design Arena: websites | 1074 | 1285 | GLM 5.2 |
| Design Arena: UI components | 1005 | 1296 | GLM 5.2 |
| Design Arena: game dev | 1005 | 1268 | GLM 5.2 |
| Design Arena: data viz | 1060 | 1285 | GLM 5.2 |
| Design Arena: 3D | 1021 | 1288 | GLM 5.2 |
| Design Arena: all code categories | 1059 | 1288 | GLM 5.2 |
| Design Arena: SVG | 1018 | 1214 | GLM 5.2 |
| Design Arena: ASCII art | Not measured | 1190 | Only GLM 5.2 measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 1 board here | |||
GeneralLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index022
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash | GLM 5.2 | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| SAGE (Vals AI) | 44.8% | Not measured | Only Gemini 2.5 Flash measured |
| MedScribe (Vals AI) | 83.0% | 83.5% | GLM 5.2 |
| IFBench | 50.3% | 73.3% | GLM 5.2 |
| Long context reasoning (AA-LCR) | 65.3% | 78.3% | GLM 5.2 |
| DTBench | 76.5% | 93.6% | GLM 5.2 |
| LMCA | 27.5% | 45.8% | GLM 5.2 |
| Surface Evolver Bench | Not measured | 55.6% | Only GLM 5.2 measured |
| LMArena Text | 1417 | 1470 | GLM 5.2 |
| LMArena Text: instruction following | 1405 | 1466 | GLM 5.2 |
| LMArena Text: creative writing | 1400 | 1463 | GLM 5.2 |
| LMArena Vision | 1235 | Not measured | Only Gemini 2.5 Flash measured |
| LMArena Text: English | 1418 | 1475 | GLM 5.2 |
| LMArena Text: non-English | 1409 | 1459 | GLM 5.2 |
| LMArena Text: Chinese | 1449 | 1522 | GLM 5.2 |
| LMArena Text: German | 1417 | 1470 | GLM 5.2 |
| LMArena Text: Japanese | 1396 | 1450 | GLM 5.2 |
| LMArena Text: Korean | 1385 | 1440 | GLM 5.2 |
| LMArena Text: French | 1432 | 1479 | GLM 5.2 |
| LMArena Text: Spanish | 1422 | 1478 | GLM 5.2 |
| LMArena Text: Russian | 1415 | 1468 | GLM 5.2 |
| LMArena Text: Polish | 1413 | 1456 | GLM 5.2 |
| LMArena Text: multi-turn | 1408 | 1469 | GLM 5.2 |
| LMArena Text: longer queries | 1419 | 1480 | GLM 5.2 |
| LMArena Text: writing and language | 1405 | 1463 | GLM 5.2 |
| LMArena Text: entertainment and media | 1393 | 1450 | GLM 5.2 |
| LMArena Vision: English | 1239 | Not measured | Only Gemini 2.5 Flash measured |
| LMArena Vision: Chinese | 1284 | Not measured | Only Gemini 2.5 Flash measured |
| LMArena Vision: reading text | 1237 | Not measured | Only Gemini 2.5 Flash measured |
| LMArena Vision: humor | 1225 | Not measured | Only Gemini 2.5 Flash measured |
| LMArena Vision: captioning | 1277 | Not measured | Only Gemini 2.5 Flash measured |
| LMArena Vision: recognizing things | 1252 | Not measured | Only Gemini 2.5 Flash measured |
| LMArena Vision: creative writing | 1241 | Not measured | Only Gemini 2.5 Flash measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 14 boards here | |||
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash | GLM 5.2 | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Neither model has a result on 5 boards here | |||
What each workload costs
Three fixed token mixes at each model's listed price, so per-token rates become a bill.
Chat turn
1K input + 500 output tokens
Gemini 2.5 Flash costs less
Repository review
50K input + 3K output tokens
Gemini 2.5 Flash costs less
Agent loop
200K input + 10K output tokens
GLM 5.2 costs less
Listed OpenRouter rates, without cache or batch discounts. A workload that does not fit a model's context window would need splitting.
Specification differences
The leading value in a row is marked; a row with a missing value names no leader. Our two rows are marked in red.
| Specification | Google Gemini 2.5 Flash | Z.ai GLM 5.2 |
|---|---|---|
| Maker | Z.ai | |
| Weights | No public weights listed | Open weights |
| Released | June 17, 2025 | June 16, 2026 |
| Context window | 1.05M | 1.05M |
| Input $/Mtok | $0.30 | $0.0341 |
| Output $/Mtok | $2.50 | $7.00 |
| Coding index | 28.7 | 57.7 |
| Independent measurements behind it | 1 | 1 |
| Cost per solved task | $0.466 | $0.86 |
| Source | OpenRouter listing | OpenRouter listing |
Questions
Is Gemini 2.5 Flash better than GLM 5.2 for coding?
Pick GLM 5.2 for coding: it scores 57.7 on the Vibe Coding Index against 28.7 for Gemini 2.5 Flash. Pick Gemini 2.5 Flash when output tokens cost 2.8x less, or when a solved task costs $0.466 against $0.86.
Which is cheaper, Gemini 2.5 Flash or GLM 5.2?
Gemini 2.5 Flash costs $0.30 per million input tokens and $2.50 per million output tokens; GLM 5.2 costs $0.0341 and $7.00. Per solved SWE-bench Verified task, Gemini 2.5 Flash costs $0.466 and GLM 5.2 $0.86.
Which has the bigger context window, Gemini 2.5 Flash or GLM 5.2?
Neither: both take 1.05M tokens.
How many benchmarks is the Gemini 2.5 Flash vs GLM 5.2 comparison based on?
51 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 21, 2026. Gemini 2.5 Flash's coding index rests on 1 independent benchmark and GLM 5.2's on 1. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.