Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

GLM 5.2 vs Mistral Large

Updated October 21, 2026. 37 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
61.1
Overall
33.7
Output $/M
$4.40
37
Mistral LargeMistral AI
Coding
No data
Overall
5.8
Output $/M
$6.00
0
vs boards won of 37 shared

Decision reading

Only GLM 5.2 has a coding score, 61.1 on the Vibe Coding Index; Mistral Large has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding.

Compare them on price, context and the boards below.

Shared results
37
GLM 5.2 only
60
Mistral Large only
7
Like-for-like categories
6 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 61.1 from 4 benchmarks, Mistral Large not benchmarked.
Widest category
Reasoning, 41.5 points apart on average over 6 shared benchmarks.
Widest single gap
GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run): GLM 5.2 89.5% against Mistral Large 35.1%, 54.4 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
Output price
GLM 5.2 $4.40 against Mistral Large $6.00 per million output tokens, 1.4x apart.
Context window
GLM 5.2 takes 1.05M tokens, Mistral Large 128K.

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 5.2BarsMistral LargeTies
Coding30
Intelligence20
Reasoning60
Math20
Knowledge60
General180
All shared boards370
CodingLike-for-likeSix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index30
Coding benchmarks for GLM 5.2 and Mistral Large
BenchmarkGLM 5.2Mistral LargeLeader
LMArena WebDev1604Not measuredOnly GLM 5.2 measured
AA Coding Index68.8Not measuredOnly GLM 5.2 measured
LiveCodeBench (Vals AI)69.5%37.1%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 measured17.8%Only Mistral Large measured
SciCode51.2%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.2 measured
Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run)50.8%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.2 measured
FrontierCode24.5%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.2 measured
WeirdML70.1%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.2 measured
ALE-Bench1047.0Not measuredOnly GLM 5.2 measured
LMArena Text: coding14871275GLM 5.2
LMArena Text: software and IT14861274GLM 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 19 boards here
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index20
Intelligence benchmarks for GLM 5.2 and Mistral Large
BenchmarkGLM 5.2Mistral LargeLeader
AA Intelligence Index33.75.8GLM 5.2
Epoch Capabilities Index151.9122.1GLM 5.2
Agentic workDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index17 boards, none shared
Agentic work benchmarks for GLM 5.2 and Mistral Large
BenchmarkGLM 5.2Mistral LargeLeader
AA Agentic Index38.4Not measuredOnly GLM 5.2 measured
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%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.2 measured
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 index60
Reasoning benchmarks for GLM 5.2 and Mistral Large
BenchmarkGLM 5.2Mistral LargeLeader
GPQA Diamond85.6%47.7%GLM 5.2
GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run)89.5%35.1%GLM 5.2
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)41.1%3.5%GLM 5.2
GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run)91.9%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.2 measured
ARC-AGI77.0%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.2 measured
ARC-AGI-222.8%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.2 measured
SimpleBench58.8%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.2 measured
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 prompts14811257GLM 5.2
LMArena Text: expert14871208GLM 5.2
LMArena Text: hard prompts in English14811268GLM 5.2
Neither model has a result on the other 8 boards here
MathLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index20
Math benchmarks for GLM 5.2 and Mistral Large
BenchmarkGLM 5.2Mistral LargeLeader
AIMENot measured9.2%Only Mistral Large measured
MATH 500 (Vals AI)Not measured74.4%Only Mistral Large measured
MGSM (Vals AI)Not measured87.2%Only Mistral Large 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: math14831261GLM 5.2
LMArena Text: mathematical work14891257GLM 5.2
Neither model has a result on the other 4 boards here
KnowledgeLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index60
Knowledge benchmarks for GLM 5.2 and Mistral Large
BenchmarkGLM 5.2Mistral LargeLeader
MMLU Pro86.7%69.7%GLM 5.2
LegalBench (Vals AI)84.1%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.2 measured
CorpFin (Vals AI)66.1%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.2 measured
TaxEval (Vals AI)73.3%63.8%GLM 5.2
MedQA (Vals AI)Not measured76.2%Only Mistral Large measured
MedCode (Vals AI)40.8%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.2 measured
MMLU Pro (Artificial Analysis run)Not measured51.5%Only Mistral Large measured
SimpleQA Verified34.2%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.2 measured
MMLUNot measured68.8%Only Mistral Large measured
LMArena Text: science14891260GLM 5.2
LMArena Text: medicine and healthcare14751255GLM 5.2
LMArena Text: legal and government14861275GLM 5.2
LMArena Text: business and finance14511238GLM 5.2
Neither model has a result on the other 4 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 Mistral Large
BenchmarkGLM 5.2Mistral LargeLeader
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 index180
General benchmarks for GLM 5.2 and Mistral Large
BenchmarkGLM 5.2Mistral LargeLeader
MedScribe (Vals AI)83.5%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.2 measured
IFBench73.3%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.2 measured
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR)78.3%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.2 measured
DTBench93.6%60.8%GLM 5.2
LMCA45.8%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.2 measured
Surface Evolver Bench55.6%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.2 measured
LMArena Text14701265GLM 5.2
LMArena Text: instruction following14661249GLM 5.2
LMArena Text: creative writing14631242GLM 5.2
LMArena Text: English14751284GLM 5.2
LMArena Text: non-English14591235GLM 5.2
LMArena Text: Chinese15221239GLM 5.2
LMArena Text: German14701242GLM 5.2
LMArena Text: Japanese14501170GLM 5.2
LMArena Text: Korean14401202GLM 5.2
LMArena Text: French14791325GLM 5.2
LMArena Text: Spanish14781268GLM 5.2
LMArena Text: Russian14681252GLM 5.2
LMArena Text: Polish14561157GLM 5.2
LMArena Text: multi-turn14691260GLM 5.2
LMArena Text: longer queries14801261GLM 5.2
LMArena Text: writing and language14631261GLM 5.2
LMArena Text: entertainment and media14501230GLM 5.2
Neither model has a result on the other 23 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 Mistral Large
BenchmarkGLM 5.2Mistral LargeLeader
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$0.0036Fits in one request
Mistral Large$0.0050Fits in one request

GLM 5.2 costs less

Repository review

50K input + 3K output tokens

GLM 5.2$0.083Fits in one request
Mistral Large$0.118Fits in one request

GLM 5.2 costs less

Agent loop

200K input + 10K output tokens

GLM 5.2$0.324Fits in one request
Mistral Large$0.460Exceeds the context window

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 Mistral Large
SpecificationZ.ai GLM 5.2Mistral Large
MakerZ.aiMistral AI
WeightsOpen weightsNo public weights listed
ReleasedJune 16, 2026February 26, 2024
Context window1.05M128K
Input $/Mtok$1.40$2.00
Output $/Mtok$4.40$6.00
Coding index61.1Not benchmarked
Independent measurements behind it40
Cost per solved task$0.86Not computable
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is GLM 5.2 better than Mistral Large for coding?

Only GLM 5.2 has a coding score, 61.1 on the Vibe Coding Index; Mistral Large has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Compare them on price, context and the boards below.

Which is cheaper, GLM 5.2 or Mistral Large?

GLM 5.2 costs $1.40 per million input tokens and $4.40 per million output tokens; Mistral Large costs $2.00 and $6.00. Cost per solved task is known for GLM 5.2 only.

Which has the bigger context window, GLM 5.2 or Mistral Large?

GLM 5.2, with 1.05M tokens against 128K.

How many benchmarks is the GLM 5.2 vs Mistral Large comparison based on?

37 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 21, 2026. GLM 5.2's coding index rests on 4 independent benchmarks and Mistral Large's on 0. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.

Compare next