LLMBenchmark.ai

Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

GLM 5.2 vs GPT-5.4 Mini

Updated October 21, 2026. 70 benchmarks have a result for both. Coding is ranked on the Vibe Coding Index; every other board is shown as published.

Replace GLM 5.2 Replace GPT-5.4 Mini
GLM 5.2Z.ai
Coding
57.7
Overall
33.7
Output $/M
$7.00
63
GPT-5.4 MiniOpenAI
Coding
28.2
Overall
24.1
Output $/M
$4.50
7
vs boards won of 70 shared

Decision reading

Pick GLM 5.2 for coding: it scores 57.7 on the Vibe Coding Index against 28.2 for GPT-5.4 Mini.

Pick GPT-5.4 Mini when output tokens cost 1.6x less, or when a solved task costs $0.70 against $0.86.

Model AGLM 5.2Z.ai57.7/1001 independent benchmark$0.86 per solved taskModel BGPT-5.4 MiniOpenAI28.2/1001 independent benchmark$0.70 per solved task
Shared results
70
GLM 5.2 only
27
GPT-5.4 Mini only
18
Like-for-like categories
7 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.

At a glance

Coding index
GLM 5.2 57.7 from 1 benchmark, GPT-5.4 Mini 28.2 from 1 benchmark.
Widest category
Agentic work, 15.1 points apart on average over 5 shared benchmarks.
Widest single gap
LMArena WebDev: React: GLM 5.2 1617 against GPT-5.4 Mini 1386, 35.6 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
Output price
GLM 5.2 $7.00 against GPT-5.4 Mini $4.50 per million output tokens, 1.6x apart.
Context window
GLM 5.2 takes 1.05M tokens, GPT-5.4 Mini 400K.

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
CategoryGLM 5.2BarsGPT-5.4 MiniTies
Coding125
Intelligence20
Agentic work50
Reasoning101
Math51
Knowledge80
General210
All shared boards637
CodingLike-for-likeFour of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index125
Coding benchmarks for GLM 5.2 and GPT-5.4 Mini
BenchmarkGLM 5.2GPT-5.4 MiniLeader
LMArena WebDev16041397GLM 5.2
AA Coding Index68.856.1GLM 5.2
LiveCodeBench (Vals AI)69.5%81.5%GPT-5.4 Mini
SWE-bench Verified (Vals AI)82.8%73.0%GLM 5.2
Terminal-Bench 4 (Vals AI)Not measured2.5%Only GPT-5.4 Mini measured
Vibe Code Bench (Vals AI)64.0%48.0%GLM 5.2
Code migration (Vals AI)37.9%12.9%GLM 5.2
ProgramBench (Vals AI)0.5%0.0%GLM 5.2
Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals AI)67.8%54.7%GLM 5.2
SkillsBench (Vals AI)45.1%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.2 measured
SciCode51.2%52.1%GPT-5.4 Mini
Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run)50.8%52.3%GPT-5.4 Mini
FrontierCode24.5%27.0%GPT-5.4 Mini
WeirdML70.1%60.3%GLM 5.2
ALE-Bench1047.01188.6GPT-5.4 Mini
LMArena Text: coding14871438GLM 5.2
LMArena Text: software and IT14861436GLM 5.2
LMArena WebDev: React16171386GLM 5.2
LMArena WebDev: HTML15651419GLM 5.2
Neither model has a result on the other 19 boards here
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index20
Intelligence benchmarks for GLM 5.2 and GPT-5.4 Mini
BenchmarkGLM 5.2GPT-5.4 MiniLeader
AA Intelligence Index33.724.1GLM 5.2
Epoch Capabilities Index151.9148.7GLM 5.2
Agentic workLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index50
Agentic work benchmarks for GLM 5.2 and GPT-5.4 Mini
BenchmarkGLM 5.2GPT-5.4 MiniLeader
AA Agentic Index38.417.9GLM 5.2
Design Arena: agents building web apps1222Not measuredOnly GLM 5.2 measured
Design Arena: agents building full-stack apps1241Not measuredOnly GLM 5.2 measured
Design Arena: agents building mobile apps1160Not measuredOnly GLM 5.2 measured
Design Arena: agents building Android apps1184Not measuredOnly GLM 5.2 measured
Design Arena: agents building Godot games1142Not measuredOnly GLM 5.2 measured
Design Arena: agents building games1206Not measuredOnly GLM 5.2 measured
Design Arena: HTML slides1175Not measuredOnly GLM 5.2 measured
Design Arena: PowerPoint slides1195Not measuredOnly GLM 5.2 measured
SREBench (Vals AI)0.0%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.2 measured
Finance Agent (Vals AI)49.7%45.4%GLM 5.2
Tax Agent Bench (Vals AI)Not measured8.8%Only GPT-5.4 Mini measured
Legal Research Bench (Vals AI)31.3%12.5%GLM 5.2
Excel Modeling Benchmark (Vals AI)61.5%45.4%GLM 5.2
τ²-Bench Telecom99.1%83.3%GLM 5.2
APEX-Agents45.2%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.2 measured
DeepResearch BenchNot measured36.3%Only GPT-5.4 Mini measured
PostTrainBench31.7%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.2 measured
Vending-Bench 2$8,314Not measuredOnly GLM 5.2 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 20 boards here
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index101
Reasoning benchmarks for GLM 5.2 and GPT-5.4 Mini
BenchmarkGLM 5.2GPT-5.4 MiniLeader
GPQA Diamond85.6%83.1%GLM 5.2
MMMU Pro (Vals AI)Not measured79.3%Only GPT-5.4 Mini measured
GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run)89.5%87.5%GLM 5.2
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)41.1%28.1%GLM 5.2
GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run)91.9%86.9%GLM 5.2
ARC-AGI77.0%63.7%GLM 5.2
ARC-AGI-222.8%18.9%GLM 5.2
SimpleBench58.8%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.2 measured
Chess puzzles22.0%23.0%GPT-5.4 Mini
Mystery game puzzles19.0%11.0%GLM 5.2
EBR-bench9.5%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.2 measured
LMArena Text: hard prompts14811424GLM 5.2
LMArena Text: expert14871435GLM 5.2
LMArena Text: hard prompts in English14811420GLM 5.2
LMArena Vision: diagramsNot measured1266Only GPT-5.4 Mini measured
LMArena Vision: homeworkNot measured1285Only GPT-5.4 Mini measured
Neither model has a result on the other 5 boards here
MathLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index51
Math benchmarks for GLM 5.2 and GPT-5.4 Mini
BenchmarkGLM 5.2GPT-5.4 MiniLeader
AIMENot measured95.6%Only GPT-5.4 Mini measured
OTIS Mock AIME86.4%88.9%GPT-5.4 Mini
FrontierMath, tiers 1 to 359.2%51.2%GLM 5.2
FrontierMath, tier 429.3%9.8%GLM 5.2
ProofBench35.0%21.0%GLM 5.2
LMArena Text: math14831418GLM 5.2
LMArena Text: mathematical work14891429GLM 5.2
Neither model has a result on the other 6 boards here
KnowledgeLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index80
Knowledge benchmarks for GLM 5.2 and GPT-5.4 Mini
BenchmarkGLM 5.2GPT-5.4 MiniLeader
MMLU Pro86.7%84.5%GLM 5.2
LegalBench (Vals AI)84.1%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.2 measured
CaseLaw (Vals AI)Not measured51.7%Only GPT-5.4 Mini measured
CorpFin (Vals AI)66.1%60.9%GLM 5.2
TaxEval (Vals AI)73.3%71.2%GLM 5.2
MortgageTax (Vals AI)Not measured63.5%Only GPT-5.4 Mini measured
MedCode (Vals AI)40.8%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.2 measured
SimpleQA Verified34.2%29.4%GLM 5.2
LMArena Text: science14891417GLM 5.2
LMArena Text: medicine and healthcare14751395GLM 5.2
LMArena Text: legal and government14861414GLM 5.2
LMArena Text: business and finance14511418GLM 5.2
Neither model has a result on the other 5 boards here
Web designDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index8 boards, none shared
Web design benchmarks for GLM 5.2 and GPT-5.4 Mini
BenchmarkGLM 5.2GPT-5.4 MiniLeader
Design Arena: websites1285Not measuredOnly GLM 5.2 measured
Design Arena: UI components1296Not measuredOnly GLM 5.2 measured
Design Arena: game dev1268Not measuredOnly GLM 5.2 measured
Design Arena: data viz1285Not measuredOnly GLM 5.2 measured
Design Arena: 3D1288Not measuredOnly GLM 5.2 measured
Design Arena: all code categories1288Not measuredOnly GLM 5.2 measured
Design Arena: SVG1214Not measuredOnly GLM 5.2 measured
Design Arena: ASCII art1190Not measuredOnly 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 index210
General benchmarks for GLM 5.2 and GPT-5.4 Mini
BenchmarkGLM 5.2GPT-5.4 MiniLeader
SAGE (Vals AI)Not measured50.8%Only GPT-5.4 Mini measured
MedScribe (Vals AI)83.5%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.2 measured
Vals Multimodal IndexNot measured54.2%Only GPT-5.4 Mini measured
IFBench73.3%73.3%GLM 5.2
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR)78.3%77.0%GLM 5.2
DTBench93.6%80.0%GLM 5.2
LMCA45.8%40.8%GLM 5.2
Surface Evolver Bench55.6%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.2 measured
LMArena Text14701412GLM 5.2
LMArena Text: instruction following14661405GLM 5.2
LMArena Text: creative writing14631370GLM 5.2
LMArena VisionNot measured1245Only GPT-5.4 Mini measured
LMArena Text: English14751412GLM 5.2
LMArena Text: non-English14591405GLM 5.2
LMArena Text: Chinese15221446GLM 5.2
LMArena Text: German14701408GLM 5.2
LMArena Text: Japanese14501375GLM 5.2
LMArena Text: Korean14401370GLM 5.2
LMArena Text: French14791441GLM 5.2
LMArena Text: Spanish14781405GLM 5.2
LMArena Text: Russian14681417GLM 5.2
LMArena Text: Polish14561415GLM 5.2
LMArena Text: multi-turn14691429GLM 5.2
LMArena Text: longer queries14801408GLM 5.2
LMArena Text: writing and language14631393GLM 5.2
LMArena Text: entertainment and media14501373GLM 5.2
LMArena Vision: EnglishNot measured1244Only GPT-5.4 Mini measured
LMArena Vision: ChineseNot measured1286Only GPT-5.4 Mini measured
LMArena Vision: reading textNot measured1253Only GPT-5.4 Mini measured
LMArena Vision: humorNot measured1235Only GPT-5.4 Mini measured
LMArena Vision: recognizing thingsNot measured1218Only GPT-5.4 Mini measured
LMArena Vision: creative writingNot measured1222Only GPT-5.4 Mini 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
Image generation benchmarks for GLM 5.2 and GPT-5.4 Mini
BenchmarkGLM 5.2GPT-5.4 MiniLeader
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

GLM 5.2$0.0035Fits in one request
GPT-5.4 Mini$0.0030Fits in one request

GPT-5.4 Mini costs less

Repository review

50K input + 3K output tokens

GLM 5.2$0.023Fits in one request
GPT-5.4 Mini$0.051Fits in one request

GLM 5.2 costs less

Agent loop

200K input + 10K output tokens

GLM 5.2$0.077Fits in one request
GPT-5.4 Mini$0.195Fits 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 GLM 5.2 and GPT-5.4 Mini
SpecificationZ.ai GLM 5.2OpenAI GPT-5.4 Mini
MakerZ.aiOpenAI
WeightsOpen weightsNo public weights listed
ReleasedJune 16, 2026March 17, 2026
Context window1.05M400K
Input $/Mtok$0.0341$0.75
Output $/Mtok$7.00$4.50
Coding index57.728.2
Independent measurements behind it11
Cost per solved task$0.86$0.70
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is GLM 5.2 better than GPT-5.4 Mini for coding?

Pick GLM 5.2 for coding: it scores 57.7 on the Vibe Coding Index against 28.2 for GPT-5.4 Mini. Pick GPT-5.4 Mini when output tokens cost 1.6x less, or when a solved task costs $0.70 against $0.86.

Which is cheaper, GLM 5.2 or GPT-5.4 Mini?

GLM 5.2 costs $0.0341 per million input tokens and $7.00 per million output tokens; GPT-5.4 Mini costs $0.75 and $4.50. Per solved SWE-bench Verified task, GLM 5.2 costs $0.86 and GPT-5.4 Mini $0.70.

Which has the bigger context window, GLM 5.2 or GPT-5.4 Mini?

GLM 5.2, with 1.05M tokens against 400K.

How many benchmarks is the GLM 5.2 vs GPT-5.4 Mini comparison based on?

70 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 21, 2026. GLM 5.2's coding index rests on 1 independent benchmark and GPT-5.4 Mini's on 1. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.

Compare next