LLMBenchmark.ai

Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

GLM 5.2 vs Llama 4 Maverick

Updated October 21, 2026. 60 benchmarks have a result for both. Coding is ranked on the Vibe Coding Index; every other board is shown as published.

GLM 5.2Z.ai
Coding
57.7
Overall
33.7
Output $/M
$7.00
60
Llama 4 MaverickMeta Llama
Coding
18.1
Overall
9.3
Output $/M
$0.6525
0
vs boards won of 60 shared

Decision reading

Pick GLM 5.2 for coding: it scores 57.7 on the Vibe Coding Index against 18.1 for Llama 4 Maverick, though on 1 benchmark against 2.

Pick Llama 4 Maverick when output tokens cost 10.7x less.

Shared results
60
GLM 5.2 only
37
Llama 4 Maverick only
24
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.

At a glance

Coding index
GLM 5.2 57.7 from 1 benchmark, Llama 4 Maverick 18.1 from 2 benchmarks.
Widest category
Agentic work, 59.5 points apart on average over 2 shared benchmarks.
Widest single gap
τ²-Bench Telecom: GLM 5.2 99.1% against Llama 4 Maverick 17.8%, 81.3 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
Output price
GLM 5.2 $7.00 against Llama 4 Maverick $0.6525 per million output tokens, 10.7x apart.
Context window
GLM 5.2 takes 1.05M tokens, Llama 4 Maverick 524K.

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 5.2BarsLlama 4 MaverickTies
Coding80
Intelligence20
Agentic work20
Reasoning90
Math20
Knowledge90
Web design60
General220
All shared boards600
CodingLike-for-likeFour of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index80
Coding benchmarks for GLM 5.2 and Llama 4 Maverick
BenchmarkGLM 5.2Llama 4 MaverickLeader
Aider polyglotNot measured15.6%Only Llama 4 Maverick measured
SWE-bench VerifiedNot measured21.0%Only Llama 4 Maverick measured
LMArena WebDev1604Not measuredOnly GLM 5.2 measured
AA Coding Index68.816.3GLM 5.2
LiveCodeBench (Vals AI)69.5%47.3%GLM 5.2
SWE-bench Verified (Vals AI)82.8%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.2 measured
Vibe Code Bench (Vals AI)64.0%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.2 measured
Code migration (Vals AI)37.9%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.2 measured
ProgramBench (Vals AI)0.5%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.2 measured
Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals AI)67.8%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.2 measured
SkillsBench (Vals AI)45.1%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.2 measured
LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run)Not measured39.7%Only Llama 4 Maverick measured
SciCode51.2%31.7%GLM 5.2
Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run)50.8%6.8%GLM 5.2
FrontierCode24.5%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.2 measured
WeirdML70.1%24.5%GLM 5.2
ALE-Bench1047.0173.0GLM 5.2
LMArena Text: coding14871301GLM 5.2
LMArena Text: software and IT14861299GLM 5.2
LMArena WebDev: React1617Not measuredOnly GLM 5.2 measured
LMArena WebDev: HTML1565Not measuredOnly 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 index20
Intelligence benchmarks for GLM 5.2 and Llama 4 Maverick
BenchmarkGLM 5.2Llama 4 MaverickLeader
AA Intelligence Index33.79.3GLM 5.2
Epoch Capabilities Index151.9132.2GLM 5.2
Agentic workLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index20
Agentic work benchmarks for GLM 5.2 and Llama 4 Maverick
BenchmarkGLM 5.2Llama 4 MaverickLeader
AA Agentic Index38.40.6GLM 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%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.2 measured
Legal Research Bench (Vals AI)31.3%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.2 measured
Excel Modeling Benchmark (Vals AI)61.5%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.2 measured
τ²-Bench Telecom99.1%17.8%GLM 5.2
APEX-Agents45.2%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.2 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 22 boards here
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index90
Reasoning benchmarks for GLM 5.2 and Llama 4 Maverick
BenchmarkGLM 5.2Llama 4 MaverickLeader
GPQA Diamond85.6%69.4%GLM 5.2
MMMU Pro (Vals AI)Not measured71.7%Only Llama 4 Maverick measured
GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run)89.5%67.1%GLM 5.2
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)41.1%4.9%GLM 5.2
GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run)91.9%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.2 measured
ARC-AGI77.0%4.4%GLM 5.2
ARC-AGI-222.8%0.0%GLM 5.2
SimpleBench58.8%27.7%GLM 5.2
Chess puzzles22.0%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.2 measured
Mystery game puzzles19.0%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.2 measured
EBR-bench9.5%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.2 measured
LMArena Text: hard prompts14811281GLM 5.2
LMArena Text: expert14871259GLM 5.2
LMArena Text: hard prompts in English14811295GLM 5.2
LMArena Vision: diagramsNot measured1134Only Llama 4 Maverick measured
LMArena Vision: homeworkNot measured1164Only Llama 4 Maverick measured
Neither model has a result on the other 5 boards here
MathLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index20
Math benchmarks for GLM 5.2 and Llama 4 Maverick
BenchmarkGLM 5.2Llama 4 MaverickLeader
AIMENot measured25.2%Only Llama 4 Maverick measured
MATH 500 (Vals AI)Not measured85.2%Only Llama 4 Maverick measured
MGSM (Vals AI)Not measured92.4%Only Llama 4 Maverick measured
AA Math IndexNot measured19.3Only Llama 4 Maverick measured
AIME 2025 (Artificial Analysis run)Not measured19.3%Only Llama 4 Maverick measured
OTIS Mock AIME86.4%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.2 measured
FrontierMath, tiers 1 to 359.2%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.2 measured
FrontierMath, tier 429.3%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.2 measured
ProofBench35.0%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.2 measured
LMArena Text: math14831299GLM 5.2
LMArena Text: mathematical work14891295GLM 5.2
Neither model has a result on the other 2 boards here
KnowledgeLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index90
Knowledge benchmarks for GLM 5.2 and Llama 4 Maverick
BenchmarkGLM 5.2Llama 4 MaverickLeader
MMLU Pro86.7%79.4%GLM 5.2
LegalBench (Vals AI)84.1%77.8%GLM 5.2
CorpFin (Vals AI)66.1%49.7%GLM 5.2
TaxEval (Vals AI)73.3%66.6%GLM 5.2
MortgageTax (Vals AI)Not measured58.5%Only Llama 4 Maverick measured
MedQA (Vals AI)Not measured43.3%Only Llama 4 Maverick measured
MedCode (Vals AI)40.8%36.5%GLM 5.2
MMLU Pro (Artificial Analysis run)Not measured80.9%Only Llama 4 Maverick measured
SimpleQA Verified34.2%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.2 measured
GeoBenchNot measured52.0%Only Llama 4 Maverick measured
LMArena Text: science14891288GLM 5.2
LMArena Text: medicine and healthcare14751275GLM 5.2
LMArena Text: legal and government14861286GLM 5.2
LMArena Text: business and finance14511260GLM 5.2
Neither model has a result on the other 3 boards here
Web designLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index60
Web design benchmarks for GLM 5.2 and Llama 4 Maverick
BenchmarkGLM 5.2Llama 4 MaverickLeader
Design Arena: websites1285871GLM 5.2
Design Arena: UI components1296899GLM 5.2
Design Arena: game dev1268838GLM 5.2
Design Arena: data viz1285882GLM 5.2
Design Arena: 3D1288901GLM 5.2
Design Arena: all code categories1288880GLM 5.2
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 index220
General benchmarks for GLM 5.2 and Llama 4 Maverick
BenchmarkGLM 5.2Llama 4 MaverickLeader
SAGE (Vals AI)Not measured35.7%Only Llama 4 Maverick measured
MedScribe (Vals AI)83.5%54.2%GLM 5.2
IFBench73.3%43.0%GLM 5.2
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR)78.3%50.0%GLM 5.2
DTBench93.6%61.9%GLM 5.2
LMCA45.8%15.9%GLM 5.2
Fiction.LiveBenchNot measured46.2%Only Llama 4 Maverick measured
Creative writing (Lech Mazur)Not measured62.0%Only Llama 4 Maverick measured
Surface Evolver Bench55.6%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.2 measured
LMArena Text14701287GLM 5.2
LMArena Text: instruction following14661267GLM 5.2
LMArena Text: creative writing14631266GLM 5.2
LMArena VisionNot measured1142Only Llama 4 Maverick measured
LMArena Text: English14751303GLM 5.2
LMArena Text: non-English14591269GLM 5.2
LMArena Text: Chinese15221277GLM 5.2
LMArena Text: German14701291GLM 5.2
LMArena Text: Japanese14501206GLM 5.2
LMArena Text: Korean14401203GLM 5.2
LMArena Text: French14791259GLM 5.2
LMArena Text: Spanish14781293GLM 5.2
LMArena Text: Russian14681286GLM 5.2
LMArena Text: Polish14561275GLM 5.2
LMArena Text: multi-turn14691289GLM 5.2
LMArena Text: longer queries14801280GLM 5.2
LMArena Text: writing and language14631277GLM 5.2
LMArena Text: entertainment and media14501250GLM 5.2
LMArena Vision: EnglishNot measured1150Only Llama 4 Maverick measured
LMArena Vision: ChineseNot measured1141Only Llama 4 Maverick measured
LMArena Vision: reading textNot measured1143Only Llama 4 Maverick measured
LMArena Vision: humorNot measured1100Only Llama 4 Maverick measured
LMArena Vision: creative writingNot measured1099Only Llama 4 Maverick 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 Llama 4 Maverick
BenchmarkGLM 5.2Llama 4 MaverickLeader
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
Llama 4 Maverick$0.0005Fits in one request

Llama 4 Maverick costs less

Repository review

50K input + 3K output tokens

GLM 5.2$0.023Fits in one request
Llama 4 Maverick$0.011Fits in one request

Llama 4 Maverick costs less

Agent loop

200K input + 10K output tokens

GLM 5.2$0.077Fits in one request
Llama 4 Maverick$0.044Fits in one request

Llama 4 Maverick 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 Llama 4 Maverick
SpecificationZ.ai GLM 5.2Meta Llama 4 Maverick
MakerZ.aiMeta Llama
WeightsOpen weightsOpen weights
ReleasedJune 16, 2026April 5, 2025
Context window1.05M524K
Input $/Mtok$0.0341$0.1875
Output $/Mtok$7.00$0.6525
Coding index57.718.1
Independent measurements behind it12
Cost per solved task$0.86$1.491
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is GLM 5.2 better than Llama 4 Maverick for coding?

Pick GLM 5.2 for coding: it scores 57.7 on the Vibe Coding Index against 18.1 for Llama 4 Maverick, though on 1 benchmark against 2. Pick Llama 4 Maverick when output tokens cost 10.7x less.

Which is cheaper, GLM 5.2 or Llama 4 Maverick?

GLM 5.2 costs $0.0341 per million input tokens and $7.00 per million output tokens; Llama 4 Maverick costs $0.1875 and $0.6525. Per solved SWE-bench Verified task, GLM 5.2 costs $0.86 and Llama 4 Maverick $1.491.

Which has the bigger context window, GLM 5.2 or Llama 4 Maverick?

GLM 5.2, with 1.05M tokens against 524K.

How many benchmarks is the GLM 5.2 vs Llama 4 Maverick comparison based on?

60 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 21, 2026. GLM 5.2's coding index rests on 1 independent benchmark and Llama 4 Maverick's on 2. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.

Compare next