GLM 5.2 vs Pareto 26.10
Pareto 26.10 costs 1.4x less per output token than GLM 5.2 ($3.20 vs $4.40 per million). Updated October 22, 2026; no benchmark has tested both models yet.
- Coding
- 61.1
- Overall
- 62.5
- Output $/M
- $4.40
- Coding
- No data
- Overall
- No data
- Output $/M
- $3.20
GLM 5.2 or Pareto 26.10: which to pick
Only GLM 5.2 has a coding score, 61.1 on the Vibe Coding Index; Pareto 26.10 has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding.
Pick Pareto 26.10 for output tokens 1.4x cheaper ($3.20 vs $4.40 per million).
No benchmark has tested both yet. GLM 5.2 has results on LMArena WebDev, AA Coding Index and LiveCodeBench (Vals AI); Pareto 26.10 has none yet. Compare them on price and context instead.
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
No call
Only GLM 5.2 has a AA Intelligence Index result, 33.7.
Directional only
Agentic work
AA Agentic Index
No call
Only GLM 5.2 has a AA Agentic Index result, 38.4.
Directional only
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
No call
Both take 1.05M tokens.
Listed by OpenRouter
Everyday cost
1K input + 500 output tokens
Pareto 26.10
GLM 5.2 $0.0036, Pareto 26.10 $0.0024 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, Pareto 26.10 not benchmarked.
- Widest category
- None yet: no category has been tested on both models.
- Widest single gap
- None yet: no benchmark has tested both models.
- Output price
- GLM 5.2 $4.40 against Pareto 26.10 $3.20 per million output tokens, 1.4x apart.
- Context window
- Both take 1.05M tokens.
Benchmark by benchmark
Every board either model has a result on, a category to a fold; bars are each result on a 0 to 100 scale. Only one model is measured on each, so no row names a leader.
CodingDirectional onlySix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index21 boards measured
| Benchmark | GLM 5.2 | Pareto 26.10 | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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% | Not measured | Only GLM 5.2 measured |
| 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 |
| SciCode | 51.2% | Not measured | Only GLM 5.2 measured |
| Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run) | 50.8% | Not measured | Only GLM 5.2 measured |
| FrontierCode | 24.5% | Not measured | Only GLM 5.2 measured |
| WeirdML | 70.1% | Not measured | Only GLM 5.2 measured |
| ALE-Bench | 1047.0 | Not measured | Only GLM 5.2 measured |
| LMArena Text: coding | 1487 | Not measured | Only GLM 5.2 measured |
| LMArena Text: software and IT | 1486 | Not measured | Only GLM 5.2 measured |
| LMArena WebDev: React | 1617 | Not measured | Only GLM 5.2 measured |
| LMArena WebDev: HTML | 1565 | Not measured | Only GLM 5.2 measured |
| SWE Atlas: Codebase QnA | 48.1% | Not measured | Only GLM 5.2 measured |
| SWE Atlas: Refactoring | 42.4% | Not measured | Only GLM 5.2 measured |
| SWE Atlas: Test Writing | 41.5% | Not measured | Only GLM 5.2 measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 22 boards here | |||
IntelligenceDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index2 boards measured
| Benchmark | GLM 5.2 | Pareto 26.10 | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Intelligence Index | 33.7 | Not measured | Only GLM 5.2 measured |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 151.9 | Not measured | Only GLM 5.2 measured |
Agentic workDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index18 boards measured
| Benchmark | GLM 5.2 | Pareto 26.10 | 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 | 1177 | 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 | 1114 | Not measured | Only GLM 5.2 measured |
| Design Arena: PowerPoint slides | 1167 | 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% | Not measured | Only GLM 5.2 measured |
| APEX-Agents | 45.2% | Not measured | Only GLM 5.2 measured |
| PostTrainBench | 31.7% | Not measured | Only GLM 5.2 measured |
| Vending-Bench 2 | $8,314 | Not measured | Only GLM 5.2 measured |
| MCP Atlas | 77.8% | Not measured | Only GLM 5.2 measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 24 boards here | |||
ReasoningDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index14 boards measured
| Benchmark | GLM 5.2 | Pareto 26.10 | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 85.6% | Not measured | Only GLM 5.2 measured |
| GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run) | 89.5% | Not measured | Only GLM 5.2 measured |
| Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run) | 41.1% | Not measured | Only GLM 5.2 measured |
| GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run) | 91.9% | Not measured | Only GLM 5.2 measured |
| ARC-AGI | 77.0% | Not measured | Only GLM 5.2 measured |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 22.8% | Not measured | Only GLM 5.2 measured |
| SimpleBench | 58.8% | Not measured | Only GLM 5.2 measured |
| Chess puzzles | 22.0% | Not measured | Only GLM 5.2 measured |
| Mystery game puzzles | 19.0% | Not measured | Only GLM 5.2 measured |
| EBR-bench | 9.5% | Not measured | Only GLM 5.2 measured |
| LMArena Text: hard prompts | 1481 | Not measured | Only GLM 5.2 measured |
| LMArena Text: expert | 1487 | Not measured | Only GLM 5.2 measured |
| LMArena Text: hard prompts in English | 1481 | Not measured | Only GLM 5.2 measured |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 62.6% | Not measured | Only GLM 5.2 measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 9 boards here | |||
MathDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index7 boards measured
| Benchmark | GLM 5.2 | Pareto 26.10 | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME | 86.4% | Not measured | Only GLM 5.2 measured |
| FrontierMath, tiers 1 to 3 | 59.2% | Not measured | Only GLM 5.2 measured |
| FrontierMath, tier 4 | 29.3% | Not measured | Only GLM 5.2 measured |
| ProofBench | 35.0% | Not measured | Only GLM 5.2 measured |
| LMArena Text: math | 1483 | Not measured | Only GLM 5.2 measured |
| LMArena Text: mathematical work | 1489 | Not measured | Only GLM 5.2 measured |
| MathArena | 22.7% | Not measured | Only GLM 5.2 measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 7 boards here | |||
KnowledgeDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index10 boards measured
| Benchmark | GLM 5.2 | Pareto 26.10 | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMLU Pro | 86.7% | Not measured | Only GLM 5.2 measured |
| LegalBench (Vals AI) | 84.1% | Not measured | Only GLM 5.2 measured |
| CorpFin (Vals AI) | 66.1% | Not measured | Only GLM 5.2 measured |
| TaxEval (Vals AI) | 73.3% | Not measured | Only GLM 5.2 measured |
| MedCode (Vals AI) | 40.8% | Not measured | Only GLM 5.2 measured |
| SimpleQA Verified | 34.2% | Not measured | Only GLM 5.2 measured |
| LMArena Text: science | 1489 | Not measured | Only GLM 5.2 measured |
| LMArena Text: medicine and healthcare | 1475 | Not measured | Only GLM 5.2 measured |
| LMArena Text: legal and government | 1486 | Not measured | Only GLM 5.2 measured |
| LMArena Text: business and finance | 1451 | Not measured | Only GLM 5.2 measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 10 boards here | |||
Web designDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index8 boards measured
| Benchmark | GLM 5.2 | Pareto 26.10 | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Design Arena: websites | 1285 | Not measured | Only GLM 5.2 measured |
| Design Arena: UI components | 1294 | Not measured | Only GLM 5.2 measured |
| Design Arena: game dev | 1267 | Not measured | Only GLM 5.2 measured |
| Design Arena: data viz | 1286 | Not measured | Only GLM 5.2 measured |
| Design Arena: 3D | 1287 | Not measured | Only GLM 5.2 measured |
| Design Arena: all code categories | 1287 | Not measured | Only GLM 5.2 measured |
| 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 | |||
GeneralDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index24 boards measured
| Benchmark | GLM 5.2 | Pareto 26.10 | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| MedScribe (Vals AI) | 83.5% | Not measured | Only GLM 5.2 measured |
| IFBench | 73.3% | Not measured | Only GLM 5.2 measured |
| Long context reasoning (AA-LCR) | 78.3% | Not measured | Only GLM 5.2 measured |
| DTBench | 93.6% | Not measured | Only GLM 5.2 measured |
| LMCA | 45.8% | Not measured | Only GLM 5.2 measured |
| Surface Evolver Bench | 55.6% | Not measured | Only GLM 5.2 measured |
| LMArena Text | 1470 | Not measured | Only GLM 5.2 measured |
| LMArena Text: instruction following | 1466 | Not measured | Only GLM 5.2 measured |
| LMArena Text: creative writing | 1463 | Not measured | Only GLM 5.2 measured |
| LMArena Text: English | 1475 | Not measured | Only GLM 5.2 measured |
| LMArena Text: non-English | 1459 | Not measured | Only GLM 5.2 measured |
| LMArena Text: Chinese | 1522 | Not measured | Only GLM 5.2 measured |
| LMArena Text: German | 1470 | Not measured | Only GLM 5.2 measured |
| LMArena Text: Japanese | 1450 | Not measured | Only GLM 5.2 measured |
| LMArena Text: Korean | 1440 | Not measured | Only GLM 5.2 measured |
| LMArena Text: French | 1479 | Not measured | Only GLM 5.2 measured |
| LMArena Text: Spanish | 1478 | Not measured | Only GLM 5.2 measured |
| LMArena Text: Russian | 1468 | Not measured | Only GLM 5.2 measured |
| LMArena Text: Polish | 1456 | Not measured | Only GLM 5.2 measured |
| LMArena Text: multi-turn | 1469 | Not measured | Only GLM 5.2 measured |
| LMArena Text: longer queries | 1480 | Not measured | Only GLM 5.2 measured |
| LMArena Text: writing and language | 1463 | Not measured | Only GLM 5.2 measured |
| LMArena Text: entertainment and media | 1450 | Not measured | Only GLM 5.2 measured |
| EQ-Bench 4 | 1222 | Not measured | Only GLM 5.2 measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 24 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
Pareto 26.10 costs less
Repository review
50K input + 3K output tokens
Pareto 26.10 costs less
Agent loop
200K input + 10K output tokens
Pareto 26.10 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 | Pareto 26.10 |
|---|---|---|
| Maker | Z.ai | Unbiased |
| Weights | Open weights | No public weights listed |
| Released | June 16, 2026 | October 15, 2026 |
| Context window | 1.05M | 1.05M |
| Input $/Mtok | $1.40 | $0.80 |
| Output $/Mtok | $4.40 | $3.20 |
| 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 Pareto 26.10 for coding?
Only GLM 5.2 has a coding score, 61.1 on the Vibe Coding Index; Pareto 26.10 has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Pick Pareto 26.10 for output tokens 1.4x cheaper ($3.20 vs $4.40 per million).
Which is cheaper, GLM 5.2 or Pareto 26.10?
GLM 5.2 costs $1.40 per million input tokens and $4.40 per million output tokens; Pareto 26.10 costs $0.80 and $3.20. Cost per solved task is known for GLM 5.2 only.
Which has the bigger context window, GLM 5.2 or Pareto 26.10?
Neither: both take 1.05M tokens.
Has any benchmark tested both GLM 5.2 and Pareto 26.10?
No benchmark has tested both yet. GLM 5.2 has results on LMArena WebDev, AA Coding Index and LiveCodeBench (Vals AI); Pareto 26.10 has none yet. Compare them on price and context instead. Data as of October 22, 2026.