GLM 5.2 vs o4 Mini
GLM 5.2 leads o4 Mini on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index, 33.7 to 16.7, at about the same output price ($4.40 vs $4.40 per million). Updated October 22, 2026; 64 benchmarks have a result for both.
GLM 5.2 or o4 Mini: which to pick
Only GLM 5.2 has a coding score, 61.1 on the Vibe Coding Index; o4 Mini has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding.
Pick o4 Mini for work measured by LiveCodeBench (Vals AI) or Kagi LLM Benchmark, where it leads.
- Shared results
- 64
- GLM 5.2 only
- 34
- o4 Mini only
- 34
- 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.
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
No call
Only GLM 5.2 has a AA Agentic Index result, 38.4.
Directional only
Reasoning
GPQA Diamond
GLM 5.2
GLM 5.2 leads, 85.6% against 74.5%.
Same board, both measured
Math
AIME
No call
Only o4 Mini has a AIME result, 83.7%.
Directional only
Knowledge
MMLU Pro
GLM 5.2
GLM 5.2 leads, 86.7% against 80.6%.
Same board, both measured
Web design
Design Arena: websites
GLM 5.2
GLM 5.2 leads, 1285 against 985.
Same board, both measured
Long documents
Listed context window
GLM 5.2
GLM 5.2 takes 1.05M tokens against 200K.
Listed by OpenRouter
Everyday cost
1K input + 500 output tokens
o4 Mini
GLM 5.2 $0.0036, o4 Mini $0.0033 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
- GLM 5.2 61.1 from 4 benchmarks, o4 Mini not benchmarked.
- Widest category
- Agentic work, 43.6 points apart on average over 1 shared benchmark.
- Widest single gap
- Design Arena: 3D: GLM 5.2 1287 against o4 Mini 854, 54.1 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
- Output price
- Both cost $4.40 per million output tokens.
- Context window
- GLM 5.2 takes 1.05M tokens, o4 Mini 200K.
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 | GLM 5.2 | Bars | o4 Mini | Ties |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | 4 | 1 | ||
| Intelligence | 2 | 0 | ||
| Agentic work | 1 | 0 | ||
| Reasoning | 11 | 1 | 1 tie | |
| Math | 5 | 0 | ||
| Knowledge | 9 | 1 | ||
| Web design | 6 | 0 | ||
| General | 22 | 0 | ||
| All shared boards | 60 | 3 | 1 tie |
CodingLike-for-likeSix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index41
| Benchmark | GLM 5.2 | o4 Mini | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Aider polyglot | Not measured | 72.0% | Only o4 Mini measured |
| SWE-bench Verified | Not measured | 64.6% | Only o4 Mini measured |
| SWE-bench Multimodal | Not measured | 33.9% | Only o4 Mini measured |
| LMArena WebDev | 1604 | Not measured | Only GLM 5.2 measured |
| AA Coding Index | 68.8 | Not measured | Only GLM 5.2 measured |
| LiveCodeBench (Vals AI) | 69.5% | 82.2% | o4 Mini |
| SWE-bench Verified (Vals AI) | 82.8% | Not measured | Only GLM 5.2 measured |
| Vibe Code Bench (Vals AI) | 64.0% | Not measured | Only GLM 5.2 measured |
| Code migration (Vals AI) | 37.9% | Not measured | Only GLM 5.2 measured |
| ProgramBench (Vals AI) | 0.5% | Not measured | Only GLM 5.2 measured |
| Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals AI) | 67.8% | Not measured | Only GLM 5.2 measured |
| SkillsBench (Vals AI) | 45.1% | Not measured | Only GLM 5.2 measured |
| LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run) | Not measured | 85.9% | Only o4 Mini measured |
| SciCode | 51.2% | Not measured | Only GLM 5.2 measured |
| Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run) | 50.8% | 15.2% | GLM 5.2 |
| FrontierCode | 24.5% | Not measured | Only GLM 5.2 measured |
| GSO-Bench | Not measured | 3.6% | Only o4 Mini measured |
| WeirdML | 70.1% | 52.6% | GLM 5.2 |
| ALE-Bench | 1047.0 | Not measured | Only GLM 5.2 measured |
| LMArena Text: coding | 1487 | 1368 | GLM 5.2 |
| LMArena Text: software and IT | 1486 | 1367 | GLM 5.2 |
| LMArena WebDev: React | 1617 | Not measured | Only GLM 5.2 measured |
| LMArena WebDev: HTML | 1565 | Not measured | Only GLM 5.2 measured |
| SciCode | Not measured | 10.8% | Only o4 Mini measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 15 boards here | |||
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index20
| Benchmark | GLM 5.2 | o4 Mini | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Intelligence Index | 33.7 | 16.7 | GLM 5.2 |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 151.9 | 145.5 | GLM 5.2 |
Agentic workLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index10
| Benchmark | GLM 5.2 | o4 Mini | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Agentic Index | 38.4 | Not measured | Only GLM 5.2 measured |
| Design Arena: agents building web apps | 1222 | Not measured | Only GLM 5.2 measured |
| Design Arena: agents building full-stack apps | 1241 | Not measured | Only GLM 5.2 measured |
| Design Arena: agents building mobile apps | 1159 | Not measured | Only GLM 5.2 measured |
| Design Arena: agents building Android apps | 1178 | Not measured | Only GLM 5.2 measured |
| Design Arena: agents building Godot games | 1142 | Not measured | Only GLM 5.2 measured |
| Design Arena: agents building games | 1206 | Not measured | Only GLM 5.2 measured |
| Design Arena: HTML slides | 1125 | Not measured | Only GLM 5.2 measured |
| Design Arena: PowerPoint slides | 1170 | Not measured | Only GLM 5.2 measured |
| SREBench (Vals AI) | 0.0% | Not measured | Only GLM 5.2 measured |
| Finance Agent (Vals AI) | 49.7% | Not measured | Only GLM 5.2 measured |
| Legal Research Bench (Vals AI) | 31.3% | Not measured | Only GLM 5.2 measured |
| Excel Modeling Benchmark (Vals AI) | 61.5% | Not measured | Only GLM 5.2 measured |
| τ²-Bench Telecom | 99.1% | 55.6% | GLM 5.2 |
| APEX-Agents | 45.2% | Not measured | Only GLM 5.2 measured |
| METR time horizons | Not measured | 63.9% | Only o4 Mini measured |
| PostTrainBench | 31.7% | Not measured | Only GLM 5.2 measured |
| Vending-Bench 2 | $8,314 | Not measured | Only GLM 5.2 measured |
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard (BFCL) | Not measured | 53.2% | Only o4 Mini measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 22 boards here | |||
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index111
| Benchmark | GLM 5.2 | o4 Mini | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 85.6% | 74.5% | GLM 5.2 |
| MMMU Pro (Vals AI) | Not measured | 79.7% | Only o4 Mini measured |
| GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run) | 89.5% | 78.4% | GLM 5.2 |
| Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run) | 41.1% | 16.5% | GLM 5.2 |
| GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run) | 91.9% | 79.6% | GLM 5.2 |
| ARC-AGI | 77.0% | 58.7% | GLM 5.2 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 22.8% | 6.1% | GLM 5.2 |
| SimpleBench | 58.8% | 38.7% | GLM 5.2 |
| Chess puzzles | 22.0% | 22.0% | Tie |
| Mystery game puzzles | 19.0% | 5.0% | GLM 5.2 |
| EBR-bench | 9.5% | Not measured | Only GLM 5.2 measured |
| VPCT | Not measured | 57.5% | Only o4 Mini measured |
| LMArena Text: hard prompts | 1481 | 1351 | GLM 5.2 |
| LMArena Text: expert | 1487 | 1343 | GLM 5.2 |
| LMArena Text: hard prompts in English | 1481 | 1366 | GLM 5.2 |
| LMArena Vision: diagrams | Not measured | 1197 | Only o4 Mini measured |
| LMArena Vision: homework | Not measured | 1234 | Only o4 Mini measured |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 62.6% | 67.6% | o4 Mini |
| Neither model has a result on the other 4 boards here | |||
MathLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index50
| Benchmark | GLM 5.2 | o4 Mini | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AIME | Not measured | 83.7% | Only o4 Mini measured |
| MATH 500 (Vals AI) | Not measured | 94.2% | Only o4 Mini measured |
| MGSM (Vals AI) | Not measured | 93.4% | Only o4 Mini measured |
| AA Math Index | Not measured | 90.7 | Only o4 Mini measured |
| AIME 2025 (Artificial Analysis run) | Not measured | 90.7% | Only o4 Mini measured |
| OTIS Mock AIME | 86.4% | 81.7% | GLM 5.2 |
| FrontierMath, tiers 1 to 3 | 59.2% | 36.1% | GLM 5.2 |
| FrontierMath, tier 4 | 29.3% | 4.9% | GLM 5.2 |
| ProofBench | 35.0% | Not measured | Only GLM 5.2 measured |
| MATH level 5 | Not measured | 97.8% | Only o4 Mini measured |
| LMArena Text: math | 1483 | 1389 | GLM 5.2 |
| LMArena Text: mathematical work | 1489 | 1379 | GLM 5.2 |
| Neither model has a result on the other 1 board here | |||
KnowledgeLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index91
| Benchmark | GLM 5.2 | o4 Mini | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMLU Pro | 86.7% | 80.6% | GLM 5.2 |
| LegalBench (Vals AI) | 84.1% | 79.2% | GLM 5.2 |
| CorpFin (Vals AI) | 66.1% | 59.0% | GLM 5.2 |
| TaxEval (Vals AI) | 73.3% | 74.8% | o4 Mini |
| MortgageTax (Vals AI) | Not measured | 64.8% | Only o4 Mini measured |
| MedQA (Vals AI) | Not measured | 96.0% | Only o4 Mini measured |
| MedCode (Vals AI) | 40.8% | 33.8% | GLM 5.2 |
| MMLU Pro (Artificial Analysis run) | Not measured | 83.2% | Only o4 Mini measured |
| SimpleQA Verified | 34.2% | 19.6% | GLM 5.2 |
| GeoBench | Not measured | 64.0% | Only o4 Mini measured |
| LMArena Text: science | 1489 | 1354 | GLM 5.2 |
| LMArena Text: medicine and healthcare | 1475 | 1361 | GLM 5.2 |
| LMArena Text: legal and government | 1486 | 1350 | GLM 5.2 |
| LMArena Text: business and finance | 1451 | 1325 | GLM 5.2 |
| FACTS Benchmark Suite | Not measured | 28.1% | Only o4 Mini measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 3 boards here | |||
Web designLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index60
| Benchmark | GLM 5.2 | o4 Mini | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Design Arena: websites | 1285 | 985 | GLM 5.2 |
| Design Arena: UI components | 1294 | 983 | GLM 5.2 |
| Design Arena: game dev | 1268 | 1003 | GLM 5.2 |
| Design Arena: data viz | 1285 | 991 | GLM 5.2 |
| Design Arena: 3D | 1287 | 854 | GLM 5.2 |
| Design Arena: all code categories | 1287 | 976 | GLM 5.2 |
| Design Arena: SVG | 1213 | Not measured | Only GLM 5.2 measured |
| Design Arena: ASCII art | 1191 | Not measured | 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 index220
| Benchmark | GLM 5.2 | o4 Mini | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| SAGE (Vals AI) | Not measured | 41.1% | Only o4 Mini measured |
| MedScribe (Vals AI) | 83.5% | 69.1% | GLM 5.2 |
| IFBench | 73.3% | 68.7% | GLM 5.2 |
| Long context reasoning (AA-LCR) | 78.3% | 61.0% | GLM 5.2 |
| DTBench | 93.6% | 77.6% | GLM 5.2 |
| LMCA | 45.8% | 26.5% | GLM 5.2 |
| Fiction.LiveBench | Not measured | 77.8% | Only o4 Mini measured |
| Creative writing (Lech Mazur) | Not measured | 75.0% | Only o4 Mini measured |
| Surface Evolver Bench | 55.6% | Not measured | Only GLM 5.2 measured |
| LMArena Text | 1470 | 1353 | GLM 5.2 |
| LMArena Text: instruction following | 1466 | 1320 | GLM 5.2 |
| LMArena Text: creative writing | 1463 | 1294 | GLM 5.2 |
| LMArena Vision | Not measured | 1194 | Only o4 Mini measured |
| LMArena Text: English | 1475 | 1367 | GLM 5.2 |
| LMArena Text: non-English | 1459 | 1337 | GLM 5.2 |
| LMArena Text: Chinese | 1522 | 1354 | GLM 5.2 |
| LMArena Text: German | 1470 | 1336 | GLM 5.2 |
| LMArena Text: Japanese | 1450 | 1308 | GLM 5.2 |
| LMArena Text: Korean | 1440 | 1312 | GLM 5.2 |
| LMArena Text: French | 1479 | 1364 | GLM 5.2 |
| LMArena Text: Spanish | 1478 | 1346 | GLM 5.2 |
| LMArena Text: Russian | 1468 | 1334 | GLM 5.2 |
| LMArena Text: Polish | 1456 | 1358 | GLM 5.2 |
| LMArena Text: multi-turn | 1469 | 1350 | GLM 5.2 |
| LMArena Text: longer queries | 1480 | 1315 | GLM 5.2 |
| LMArena Text: writing and language | 1463 | 1316 | GLM 5.2 |
| LMArena Text: entertainment and media | 1450 | 1308 | GLM 5.2 |
| LMArena Vision: English | Not measured | 1200 | Only o4 Mini measured |
| LMArena Vision: Chinese | Not measured | 1218 | Only o4 Mini measured |
| LMArena Vision: reading text | Not measured | 1197 | Only o4 Mini measured |
| LMArena Vision: humor | Not measured | 1199 | Only o4 Mini measured |
| LMArena Vision: captioning | Not measured | 1204 | Only o4 Mini measured |
| LMArena Vision: recognizing things | Not measured | 1218 | Only o4 Mini measured |
| LMArena Vision: creative writing | Not measured | 1166 | Only o4 Mini 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
| Benchmark | GLM 5.2 | o4 Mini | 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
o4 Mini costs less
Repository review
50K input + 3K output tokens
o4 Mini costs less
Agent loop
200K input + 10K output tokens
o4 Mini 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 | Z.ai GLM 5.2 | OpenAI o4 Mini |
|---|---|---|
| Maker | Z.ai | OpenAI |
| Weights | Open weights | No public weights listed |
| Released | June 16, 2026 | April 16, 2025 |
| Context window | 1.05M | 200K |
| Input $/Mtok | $1.40 | $1.10 |
| Output $/Mtok | $4.40 | $4.40 |
| Coding index | 61.1 | Not benchmarked |
| Independent measurements behind it | 4 | 0 |
| Cost per solved task | $0.86 | Not computable |
| Source | OpenRouter listing | OpenRouter listing |
Questions
Is GLM 5.2 better than o4 Mini for coding?
Only GLM 5.2 has a coding score, 61.1 on the Vibe Coding Index; o4 Mini has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Pick o4 Mini for work measured by LiveCodeBench (Vals AI) or Kagi LLM Benchmark, where it leads.
Which is cheaper, GLM 5.2 or o4 Mini?
GLM 5.2 costs $1.40 per million input tokens and $4.40 per million output tokens; o4 Mini costs $1.10 and $4.40. Cost per solved task is known for GLM 5.2 only.
Which has the bigger context window, GLM 5.2 or o4 Mini?
GLM 5.2, with 1.05M tokens against 200K.
How many benchmarks is the GLM 5.2 vs o4 Mini comparison based on?
64 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 22, 2026. GLM 5.2's coding index rests on 4 independent benchmarks and o4 Mini's on 0. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.