Gemma 4 26B A4B vs GLM 5.2
GLM 5.2 leads Gemma 4 26B A4B on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index, 33.7 to 16.7, and Gemma 4 26B A4B costs 7.3x less per output token ($0.60 vs $4.40 per million). Updated October 22, 2026; 44 benchmarks have a result for both.
Gemma 4 26B A4B or GLM 5.2: which to pick
Only GLM 5.2 has a coding score, 61.1 on the Vibe Coding Index; Gemma 4 26B A4B has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding.
Pick Gemma 4 26B A4B for output tokens 7.3x cheaper ($0.60 vs $4.40 per million).
- Shared results
- 44
- Gemma 4 26B A4B only
- 11
- GLM 5.2 only
- 54
- Like-for-like categories
- 7 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.
Coding
Vibe Coding Index, six public coding benchmarks
No call
Only GLM 5.2 has a coding score, so no call is made.
One side not measured
Intelligence
AA Intelligence Index
GLM 5.2
GLM 5.2 leads, 33.7 against 16.7.
Same board, both measured
Agentic work
AA Agentic Index
GLM 5.2
GLM 5.2 leads, 38.4 against 2.9.
Same board, both measured
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
No call
Only GLM 5.2 has a Design Arena: websites result, 1285.
Directional only
Long documents
Listed context window
GLM 5.2
GLM 5.2 takes 1.05M tokens against 262K.
Listed by OpenRouter
Everyday cost
1K input + 500 output tokens
Gemma 4 26B A4B
Gemma 4 26B A4B $0.0004, GLM 5.2 $0.0036 per turn.
List prices
Cost per solved task
One SWE-bench Verified task, solved
No call
Only GLM 5.2 has the number, $0.86.
Directional only
At a glance
- Coding index
- Gemma 4 26B A4B not benchmarked, GLM 5.2 61.1 from 4 benchmarks.
- Widest category
- Agentic work, 45.5 points apart on average over 2 shared benchmarks.
- Widest single gap
- τ²-Bench Telecom: Gemma 4 26B A4B 43.6% against GLM 5.2 99.1%, 55.6 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
- Output price
- Gemma 4 26B A4B $0.60 against GLM 5.2 $4.40 per million output tokens, 7.3x apart.
- Context window
- Gemma 4 26B A4B takes 262K tokens, GLM 5.2 1.05M.
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 | Gemma 4 26B A4B | Bars | GLM 5.2 | Ties |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | 0 | 10 | ||
| Intelligence | 0 | 2 | ||
| Agentic work | 0 | 2 | ||
| Reasoning | 0 | 6 | ||
| Math | 0 | 3 | ||
| Knowledge | 0 | 4 | ||
| General | 0 | 17 | ||
| All shared boards | 0 | 44 |
CodingLike-for-likeSix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index010
| Benchmark | Gemma 4 26B A4B | GLM 5.2 | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| LMArena WebDev | 1360 | 1604 | GLM 5.2 |
| AA Coding Index | 39.3 | 68.8 | GLM 5.2 |
| 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 |
| SciCode | 40.0% | 51.2% | GLM 5.2 |
| Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run) | 25.0% | 50.8% | GLM 5.2 |
| FrontierCode | Not measured | 24.5% | Only GLM 5.2 measured |
| WeirdML | 35.2% | 70.1% | GLM 5.2 |
| ALE-Bench | 927.2 | 1047.0 | GLM 5.2 |
| LMArena Text: coding | 1446 | 1487 | GLM 5.2 |
| LMArena Text: software and IT | 1454 | 1486 | GLM 5.2 |
| LMArena WebDev: React | 1351 | 1617 | GLM 5.2 |
| LMArena WebDev: HTML | 1362 | 1565 | GLM 5.2 |
| Neither model has a result on the other 21 boards here | |||
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index02
| Benchmark | Gemma 4 26B A4B | GLM 5.2 | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Intelligence Index | 16.7 | 33.7 | GLM 5.2 |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 141.9 | 151.9 | GLM 5.2 |
Agentic workLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index02
| Benchmark | Gemma 4 26B A4B | GLM 5.2 | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Agentic Index | 2.9 | 38.4 | GLM 5.2 |
| 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 | 1159 | Only GLM 5.2 measured |
| Design Arena: agents building Android apps | Not measured | 1178 | 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 | 1125 | Only GLM 5.2 measured |
| Design Arena: PowerPoint slides | Not measured | 1170 | 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 | 43.6% | 99.1% | GLM 5.2 |
| APEX-Agents | Not measured | 45.2% | Only GLM 5.2 measured |
| PostTrainBench | Not measured | 31.7% | Only GLM 5.2 measured |
| Vending-Bench 2 | Not measured | $8,314 | Only GLM 5.2 measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 24 boards here | |||
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index06
| Benchmark | Gemma 4 26B A4B | GLM 5.2 | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | Not measured | 85.6% | Only GLM 5.2 measured |
| GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run) | 79.2% | 89.5% | GLM 5.2 |
| Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run) | 19.3% | 41.1% | GLM 5.2 |
| GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run) | 73.2% | 91.9% | GLM 5.2 |
| ARC-AGI | Not measured | 77.0% | Only GLM 5.2 measured |
| ARC-AGI-2 | Not measured | 22.8% | Only GLM 5.2 measured |
| SimpleBench | Not measured | 58.8% | Only GLM 5.2 measured |
| 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 | 1438 | 1481 | GLM 5.2 |
| LMArena Text: expert | 1447 | 1487 | GLM 5.2 |
| LMArena Text: hard prompts in English | 1448 | 1481 | GLM 5.2 |
| LMArena Vision: diagrams | 1264 | Not measured | Only Gemma 4 26B A4B measured |
| LMArena Vision: homework | 1293 | Not measured | Only Gemma 4 26B A4B measured |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | Not measured | 62.6% | Only GLM 5.2 measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 6 boards here | |||
MathLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index03
| Benchmark | Gemma 4 26B A4B | GLM 5.2 | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME | 82.2% | 86.4% | GLM 5.2 |
| 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 | 1470 | 1483 | GLM 5.2 |
| LMArena Text: mathematical work | 1475 | 1489 | GLM 5.2 |
| Neither model has a result on the other 7 boards here | |||
KnowledgeLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index04
| Benchmark | Gemma 4 26B A4B | 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) | Not measured | 40.8% | Only GLM 5.2 measured |
| SimpleQA Verified | Not measured | 34.2% | Only GLM 5.2 measured |
| LMArena Text: science | 1446 | 1489 | GLM 5.2 |
| LMArena Text: medicine and healthcare | 1428 | 1475 | GLM 5.2 |
| LMArena Text: legal and government | 1457 | 1486 | GLM 5.2 |
| LMArena Text: business and finance | 1429 | 1451 | GLM 5.2 |
| FACTS Benchmark Suite | 42.7% | Not measured | Only Gemma 4 26B A4B measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 7 boards here | |||
Web designDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index8 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Gemma 4 26B A4B | GLM 5.2 | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Design Arena: websites | Not measured | 1285 | Only GLM 5.2 measured |
| Design Arena: UI components | Not measured | 1294 | Only GLM 5.2 measured |
| Design Arena: game dev | Not measured | 1268 | Only GLM 5.2 measured |
| Design Arena: data viz | Not measured | 1285 | Only GLM 5.2 measured |
| Design Arena: 3D | Not measured | 1287 | Only GLM 5.2 measured |
| Design Arena: all code categories | Not measured | 1287 | Only GLM 5.2 measured |
| Design Arena: SVG | Not measured | 1213 | Only GLM 5.2 measured |
| Design Arena: ASCII art | Not measured | 1191 | 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 index017
| Benchmark | Gemma 4 26B A4B | GLM 5.2 | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| MedScribe (Vals AI) | Not measured | 83.5% | Only GLM 5.2 measured |
| IFBench | 72.4% | 73.3% | GLM 5.2 |
| Long context reasoning (AA-LCR) | 65.7% | 78.3% | GLM 5.2 |
| DTBench | 74.9% | 93.6% | GLM 5.2 |
| LMCA | 29.7% | 45.8% | GLM 5.2 |
| Surface Evolver Bench | Not measured | 55.6% | Only GLM 5.2 measured |
| LMArena Text | 1434 | 1470 | GLM 5.2 |
| LMArena Text: instruction following | 1420 | 1466 | GLM 5.2 |
| LMArena Text: creative writing | 1400 | 1463 | GLM 5.2 |
| LMArena Vision | 1260 | Not measured | Only Gemma 4 26B A4B measured |
| LMArena Text: English | 1444 | 1475 | GLM 5.2 |
| LMArena Text: non-English | 1421 | 1459 | GLM 5.2 |
| LMArena Text: Chinese | 1495 | 1522 | GLM 5.2 |
| LMArena Text: German | Not measured | 1470 | Only GLM 5.2 measured |
| LMArena Text: Japanese | Not measured | 1450 | Only GLM 5.2 measured |
| LMArena Text: Korean | Not measured | 1440 | Only GLM 5.2 measured |
| LMArena Text: French | 1460 | 1479 | GLM 5.2 |
| LMArena Text: Spanish | 1415 | 1478 | GLM 5.2 |
| LMArena Text: Russian | 1434 | 1468 | GLM 5.2 |
| LMArena Text: Polish | Not measured | 1456 | Only GLM 5.2 measured |
| LMArena Text: multi-turn | 1441 | 1469 | GLM 5.2 |
| LMArena Text: longer queries | 1427 | 1480 | GLM 5.2 |
| LMArena Text: writing and language | 1405 | 1463 | GLM 5.2 |
| LMArena Text: entertainment and media | 1403 | 1450 | GLM 5.2 |
| LMArena Vision: English | 1256 | Not measured | Only Gemma 4 26B A4B measured |
| LMArena Vision: Chinese | 1312 | Not measured | Only Gemma 4 26B A4B measured |
| LMArena Vision: reading text | 1268 | Not measured | Only Gemma 4 26B A4B measured |
| LMArena Vision: humor | 1272 | Not measured | Only Gemma 4 26B A4B measured |
| LMArena Vision: captioning | 1297 | Not measured | Only Gemma 4 26B A4B measured |
| LMArena Vision: recognizing things | 1191 | Not measured | Only Gemma 4 26B A4B measured |
| LMArena Vision: creative writing | 1256 | Not measured | Only Gemma 4 26B A4B measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 15 boards here | |||
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Gemma 4 26B A4B | 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
Gemma 4 26B A4B costs less
Repository review
50K input + 3K output tokens
Gemma 4 26B A4B costs less
Agent loop
200K input + 10K output tokens
Gemma 4 26B A4B 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 Gemma 4 26B A4B | Z.ai GLM 5.2 |
|---|---|---|
| Maker | Z.ai | |
| Weights | Open weights | Open weights |
| Released | April 3, 2026 | June 16, 2026 |
| Context window | 262K | 1.05M |
| Input $/Mtok | $0.15 | $1.40 |
| Output $/Mtok | $0.60 | $4.40 |
| Coding index | Not benchmarked | 61.1 |
| Independent measurements behind it | 1 | 4 |
| Cost per solved task | Not computable | $0.86 |
| Source | OpenRouter listing | OpenRouter listing |
Questions
Is Gemma 4 26B A4B better than GLM 5.2 for coding?
Only GLM 5.2 has a coding score, 61.1 on the Vibe Coding Index; Gemma 4 26B A4B has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Pick Gemma 4 26B A4B for output tokens 7.3x cheaper ($0.60 vs $4.40 per million).
Which is cheaper, Gemma 4 26B A4B or GLM 5.2?
Gemma 4 26B A4B costs $0.15 per million input tokens and $0.60 per million output tokens; GLM 5.2 costs $1.40 and $4.40. Cost per solved task is known for GLM 5.2 only.
Which has the bigger context window, Gemma 4 26B A4B or GLM 5.2?
GLM 5.2, with 1.05M tokens against 262K.
How many benchmarks is the Gemma 4 26B A4B vs GLM 5.2 comparison based on?
44 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 22, 2026. Gemma 4 26B A4B's coding index rests on 1 independent benchmark and GLM 5.2's on 4. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.