Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

Gemini 2.5 Pro vs GLM 5.2

GLM 5.2 leads Gemini 2.5 Pro on coding, 61.1 to 19.1 on the Vibe Coding Index, and GLM 5.2 costs 2.3x less per output token ($4.40 vs $10.00 per million). Updated October 22, 2026; 63 benchmarks have a result for both.

Replace Gemini 2.5 Pro Replace GLM 5.2
Gemini 2.5 ProGoogle
Coding
19.1
Overall
41.8
Output $/M
$10.00
6
GLM 5.2Z.ai
Coding
61.1
Overall
62.5
Output $/M
$4.40
57
vs boards won of 63 shared

Gemini 2.5 Pro or GLM 5.2: which to pick

Pick GLM 5.2 for coding: it scores 61.1 on the Vibe Coding Index against 19.1 for Gemini 2.5 Pro.

Pick Gemini 2.5 Pro for a lower cost per solved task ($0.64 against $0.86) and work measured by Kagi LLM Benchmark or MedCode (Vals AI), where it leads.

Model AGemini 2.5 ProGoogle19.1/1003 independent benchmarks$0.64 per solved taskModel BGLM 5.2Z.ai61.1/1004 independent benchmarks$0.86 per solved task
Shared results
63
Gemini 2.5 Pro only
27
GLM 5.2 only
35
Like-for-like categories
8 of 9

Only benchmarks that tested both models count toward a pick; a result only one model has is shown but not compared.

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.

At a glance

Coding index
Gemini 2.5 Pro 19.1 from 3 benchmarks, GLM 5.2 61.1 from 4 benchmarks.
Widest category
Agentic work, 43.4 points apart on average over 3 shared benchmarks.
Widest single gap
Vibe Code Bench (Vals AI): Gemini 2.5 Pro 0.4% against GLM 5.2 64.0%, 63.6 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
Output price
Gemini 2.5 Pro $10.00 against GLM 5.2 $4.40 per million output tokens, 2.3x 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.

Boards won, where both have a result
CategoryGemini 2.5 ProBarsGLM 5.2Ties
Coding010
Intelligence02
Agentic work03
Reasoning18
Math05
Knowledge24
Web design06
General319
All shared boards657
CodingLike-for-likeSix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index010
Coding benchmarks for Gemini 2.5 Pro and GLM 5.2
BenchmarkGemini 2.5 ProGLM 5.2Leader
SWE-bench Verified53.6%Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
LMArena WebDev12261604GLM 5.2
AA Coding Index33.368.8GLM 5.2
LiveCodeBench (Vals AI)Not measured69.5%Only GLM 5.2 measured
SWE-bench Verified (Vals AI)54.4%82.8%GLM 5.2
Vibe Code Bench (Vals AI)0.4%64.0%GLM 5.2
Code migration (Vals AI)Not measured37.9%Only GLM 5.2 measured
ProgramBench (Vals AI)Not measured0.5%Only GLM 5.2 measured
Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals AI)Not measured67.8%Only GLM 5.2 measured
SkillsBench (Vals AI)Not measured45.1%Only GLM 5.2 measured
LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run)80.1%Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
SciCode46.3%51.2%GLM 5.2
Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run)26.5%50.8%GLM 5.2
Terminal-Bench32.6%Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
FrontierCodeNot measured24.5%Only GLM 5.2 measured
GSO-Bench3.9%Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
WeirdML54.0%70.1%GLM 5.2
ALE-BenchNot measured1047.0Only GLM 5.2 measured
LMArena Text: coding14521487GLM 5.2
LMArena Text: software and IT14591486GLM 5.2
LMArena WebDev: ReactNot measured1617Only GLM 5.2 measured
LMArena WebDev: HTML12351565GLM 5.2
LMArena WebDev: from an image1285Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
Neither model has a result on the other 16 boards here
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index02
Intelligence benchmarks for Gemini 2.5 Pro and GLM 5.2
BenchmarkGemini 2.5 ProGLM 5.2Leader
AA Intelligence Index16.133.7GLM 5.2
Epoch Capabilities Index145.1151.9GLM 5.2
Agentic workLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index03
Agentic work benchmarks for Gemini 2.5 Pro and GLM 5.2
BenchmarkGemini 2.5 ProGLM 5.2Leader
AA Agentic Index1.638.4GLM 5.2
Design Arena: agents building web appsNot measured1222Only GLM 5.2 measured
Design Arena: agents building full-stack appsNot measured1241Only GLM 5.2 measured
Design Arena: agents building mobile appsNot measured1159Only GLM 5.2 measured
Design Arena: agents building Android appsNot measured1178Only GLM 5.2 measured
Design Arena: agents building Godot gamesNot measured1142Only GLM 5.2 measured
Design Arena: agents building gamesNot measured1206Only GLM 5.2 measured
Design Arena: HTML slidesNot measured1125Only GLM 5.2 measured
Design Arena: PowerPoint slidesNot measured1170Only GLM 5.2 measured
SREBench (Vals AI)Not measured0.0%Only GLM 5.2 measured
Finance Agent (Vals AI)Not measured49.7%Only GLM 5.2 measured
Legal Research Bench (Vals AI)Not measured31.3%Only GLM 5.2 measured
Excel Modeling Benchmark (Vals AI)Not measured61.5%Only GLM 5.2 measured
τ²-Bench Telecom54.1%99.1%GLM 5.2
APEX-AgentsNot measured45.2%Only GLM 5.2 measured
GDPval23.3%Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
DeepResearch Bench41.5%Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
PostTrainBenchNot measured31.7%Only GLM 5.2 measured
Vending-Bench 2$574$8,314GLM 5.2
BrowseComp-Plus29.5%Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
Neither model has a result on the other 21 boards here
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index18
Reasoning benchmarks for Gemini 2.5 Pro and GLM 5.2
BenchmarkGemini 2.5 ProGLM 5.2Leader
GPQA DiamondNot measured85.6%Only GLM 5.2 measured
GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run)84.4%89.5%GLM 5.2
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)22.5%41.1%GLM 5.2
GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run)85.3%91.9%GLM 5.2
ARC-AGI41.0%77.0%GLM 5.2
ARC-AGI-24.9%22.8%GLM 5.2
SimpleBenchNot measured58.8%Only GLM 5.2 measured
Chess puzzlesNot measured22.0%Only GLM 5.2 measured
Mystery game puzzlesNot measured19.0%Only GLM 5.2 measured
EBR-benchNot measured9.5%Only GLM 5.2 measured
LMArena Text: hard prompts14551481GLM 5.2
LMArena Text: expert14521487GLM 5.2
LMArena Text: hard prompts in English14531481GLM 5.2
LMArena Vision: diagrams1274Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
LMArena Vision: homework1281Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
Kagi LLM Benchmark70.3%62.6%Gemini 2.5 Pro
Neither model has a result on the other 6 boards here
MathLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index05
Math benchmarks for Gemini 2.5 Pro and GLM 5.2
BenchmarkGemini 2.5 ProGLM 5.2Leader
AA Math Index87.7Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
AIME 2025 (Artificial Analysis run)87.7%Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
OTIS Mock AIME84.7%86.4%GLM 5.2
FrontierMath, tiers 1 to 324.6%59.2%GLM 5.2
FrontierMath, tier 40.0%29.3%GLM 5.2
ProofBenchNot measured35.0%Only GLM 5.2 measured
LMArena Text: math14501483GLM 5.2
LMArena Text: mathematical work14541489GLM 5.2
Neither model has a result on the other 5 boards here
KnowledgeLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index24
Knowledge benchmarks for Gemini 2.5 Pro and GLM 5.2
BenchmarkGemini 2.5 ProGLM 5.2Leader
MMLU ProNot measured86.7%Only GLM 5.2 measured
LegalBench (Vals AI)Not measured84.1%Only GLM 5.2 measured
CaseLaw (Vals AI)63.9%Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
CorpFin (Vals AI)60.8%66.1%GLM 5.2
TaxEval (Vals AI)Not measured73.3%Only GLM 5.2 measured
MortgageTax (Vals AI)68.9%Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
MedCode (Vals AI)50.6%40.8%Gemini 2.5 Pro
MMLU Pro (Artificial Analysis run)86.2%Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
SimpleQA VerifiedNot measured34.2%Only GLM 5.2 measured
LMArena Text: science14801489GLM 5.2
LMArena Text: medicine and healthcare14761475Gemini 2.5 Pro
LMArena Text: legal and government14801486GLM 5.2
LMArena Text: business and finance14391451GLM 5.2
FACTS Benchmark Suite61.5%Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
Neither model has a result on the other 4 boards here
Web designLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index06
Web design benchmarks for Gemini 2.5 Pro and GLM 5.2
BenchmarkGemini 2.5 ProGLM 5.2Leader
Design Arena: websites11671285GLM 5.2
Design Arena: UI components11371294GLM 5.2
Design Arena: game dev11111268GLM 5.2
Design Arena: data viz12221285GLM 5.2
Design Arena: 3D10801287GLM 5.2
Design Arena: all code categories11521287GLM 5.2
Design Arena: SVGNot measured1213Only GLM 5.2 measured
Design Arena: ASCII artNot measured1191Only 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 index319
General benchmarks for Gemini 2.5 Pro and GLM 5.2
BenchmarkGemini 2.5 ProGLM 5.2Leader
SAGE (Vals AI)41.9%Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
MedScribe (Vals AI)73.5%83.5%GLM 5.2
IFBench48.7%73.3%GLM 5.2
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR)69.0%78.3%GLM 5.2
DTBench82.4%93.6%GLM 5.2
LMCA34.8%45.8%GLM 5.2
Creative writing (Lech Mazur)83.8%Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
Surface Evolver BenchNot measured55.6%Only GLM 5.2 measured
LMArena Text14581470GLM 5.2
LMArena Text: instruction following14371466GLM 5.2
LMArena Text: creative writing14541463GLM 5.2
LMArena Vision1263Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
LMArena Text: English14581475GLM 5.2
LMArena Text: non-English14521459GLM 5.2
LMArena Text: Chinese15071522GLM 5.2
LMArena Text: German14871470Gemini 2.5 Pro
LMArena Text: Japanese14611450Gemini 2.5 Pro
LMArena Text: Korean14341440GLM 5.2
LMArena Text: French14731479GLM 5.2
LMArena Text: Spanish14741478GLM 5.2
LMArena Text: Russian14611468GLM 5.2
LMArena Text: Polish14791456Gemini 2.5 Pro
LMArena Text: multi-turn14531469GLM 5.2
LMArena Text: longer queries14491480GLM 5.2
LMArena Text: writing and language14541463GLM 5.2
LMArena Text: entertainment and media14411450GLM 5.2
LMArena Vision: English1261Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
LMArena Vision: Chinese1300Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
LMArena Vision: reading text1270Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
LMArena Vision: humor1262Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
LMArena Vision: captioning1304Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
LMArena Vision: recognizing things1283Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
LMArena Vision: creative writing1265Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
LMArena Document1421Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
Neither model has a result on the other 12 boards here
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
Image generation benchmarks for Gemini 2.5 Pro and GLM 5.2
BenchmarkGemini 2.5 ProGLM 5.2Leader
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 Pro$0.0063Fits in one request
GLM 5.2$0.0036Fits in one request

GLM 5.2 costs less

Repository review

50K input + 3K output tokens

Gemini 2.5 Pro$0.092Fits in one request
GLM 5.2$0.083Fits in one request

GLM 5.2 costs less

Agent loop

200K input + 10K output tokens

Gemini 2.5 Pro$0.350Fits in one request
GLM 5.2$0.324Fits in one request

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.

Specifications of Gemini 2.5 Pro and GLM 5.2
SpecificationGoogle Gemini 2.5 ProZ.ai GLM 5.2
MakerGoogleZ.ai
WeightsNo public weights listedOpen weights
ReleasedJune 17, 2025June 16, 2026
Context window1.05M1.05M
Input $/Mtok$1.25$1.40
Output $/Mtok$10.00$4.40
Coding index19.161.1
Independent measurements behind it34
Cost per solved task$0.64$0.86
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is Gemini 2.5 Pro better than GLM 5.2 for coding?

Pick GLM 5.2 for coding: it scores 61.1 on the Vibe Coding Index against 19.1 for Gemini 2.5 Pro. Pick Gemini 2.5 Pro for a lower cost per solved task ($0.64 against $0.86) and work measured by Kagi LLM Benchmark or MedCode (Vals AI), where it leads.

Which is cheaper, Gemini 2.5 Pro or GLM 5.2?

Gemini 2.5 Pro costs $1.25 per million input tokens and $10.00 per million output tokens; GLM 5.2 costs $1.40 and $4.40. Per solved SWE-bench Verified task, Gemini 2.5 Pro costs $0.64 and GLM 5.2 $0.86.

Which has the bigger context window, Gemini 2.5 Pro or GLM 5.2?

Neither: both take 1.05M tokens.

How many benchmarks is the Gemini 2.5 Pro vs GLM 5.2 comparison based on?

63 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 22, 2026. Gemini 2.5 Pro's coding index rests on 3 independent benchmarks and GLM 5.2's on 4. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.

Compare next

Embed this comparison on your site

Free under CC BY 4.0, while the source link stays visible. Preview the frame · Terms and other embeds

<iframe src="https://llmbenchmark.ai/embed/compare/gemini-2-5-pro-vs-glm-5-2" title="Gemini 2.5 Pro vs GLM 5.2, LLMBenchmark.ai" width="100%" height="360" style="border:0;max-width:100%" loading="lazy"></iframe>
<p style="font:13px/1.4 sans-serif;margin:6px 0 0">Source: <a href="https://llmbenchmark.ai/compare/gemini-2-5-pro-vs-glm-5-2">LLMBenchmark.ai, Gemini 2.5 Pro vs GLM 5.2</a></p>