Model comparison
Gemini 3.1 Pro vs GLM-5.2
Head-to-head evidence from 27 shared benchmark results across 6 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: Gemini 3.1 Pro #83 (Estimated); GLM-5.2 #37 (Estimated). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Gemini 3.1 Pro and GLM-5.2 share 27 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 20 results are unique to Gemini 3.1 Pro; 16 to GLM-5.2.
Updated July 23, 2026- Shared results
- 27
- Gemini 3.1 Pro only
- 20
- GLM-5.2 only
- 16
- Comparable categories
- 1 / 8
Pick GLM-5.2 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Gemini 3.1 Pro only becomes the better choice if you would rather avoid the extra latency and token burn of a reasoning model.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 27 shared benchmark results across 6 evidence categories; 1 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.
Why this result
GLM-5.2 is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 63.96 to 55.3. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
GLM-5.2's sharpest advantage is in mathematics, where it averages 95.9 against 31.8.
Gemini 3.1 Pro is also the more expensive model on tokens at $2.00 input / $12.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $1.40 input / $4.40 output per 1M tokens for GLM-5.2. That is roughly 2.7x on output cost alone. GLM-5.2 is the reasoning model in the pair, while Gemini 3.1 Pro is not. That usually helps on harder chain-of-thought-heavy tests, but it can also mean more latency and more token spend in real use.
Category breakdown
Exact category averages are shown below. Not measured means BenchLM does not have enough sourced public coverage for that model and category.
| Category | Gemini 3.1 Pro | Δ | GLM-5.2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Math | Gemini 3.1 Pro31.8 | Margin→ 64.1 | GLM-5.295.9 |
| Agentic | Gemini 3.1 ProNot measured | MarginNo overlap | GLM-5.281.0 |
| Coding | Gemini 3.1 ProNot measured | MarginNo overlap | GLM-5.262.1 |
| Reasoning | Gemini 3.1 Pro77.1 | MarginNo overlap | GLM-5.2Not measured |
| Knowledge | Gemini 3.1 ProNot measured | MarginNo overlap | GLM-5.259.6 |
| Multimodal | Gemini 3.1 Pro82.6 | MarginNo overlap | GLM-5.2Not measured |
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Gemini 3.1 Pro | GLM-5.2 | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Gemini 3.1 Pro$2 input / $12 output | GLM-5.2$1.4 input / $4.4 output | GLM-5.2 has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Gemini 3.1 Pro109 tok/s | GLM-5.2Not available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Gemini 3.1 Pro29.71 s | GLM-5.2Not available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Gemini 3.1 Pro1M | GLM-5.21M | Listed context windows are equal. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic20 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.1 Pro | GLM-5.2 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Claw-EvalSource | 57.8% | — | Not comparable |
| DeepSearchQASource | 69.7% | — | Not comparable |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | 95.6% | 99.1% | GLM-5.2 leads |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | 21.4% | 43.1% | GLM-5.2 leads |
| APEX-Agents-AASource | 32.0% | 33.7% | GLM-5.2 leads |
| GDPval-AASource | 23.3% | 50.7% | GLM-5.2 leads |
| GDPval-AASource | 965 | 1514 | GLM-5.2 leads |
| Gert LabsSource | 56.87% | — | Not comparable |
| ResearchClawBenchSource | 13.3% | 20.7% | GLM-5.2 leads |
| AA AutomationBenchSource | 37.5% | 27.8% | Gemini 3.1 Pro leads |
| AA EnterpriseOps-GymSource | 42.2% | 42.7% | GLM-5.2 leads |
| AA Harvey LABSource | 58.9% | 91.0% | GLM-5.2 leads |
| AA ITBenchSource | 30.3% | 42.7% | GLM-5.2 leads |
| AA Tau3 BankingSource | 16.5% | 26.8% | GLM-5.2 leads |
| terminalBenchHardSource | 53.8% | 50.8% | Gemini 3.1 Pro leads |
| aaTerminalBench21Source | 73.8% | 77.9% | GLM-5.2 leads |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | — | 81% | Not comparable |
| MCP AtlasSource | — | 76.8% | Not comparable |
| ToolathlonSource | — | 48.2% | Not comparable |
| AA BriefcaseSource | — | 1260 | Not comparable |
Coding10 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.1 Pro | GLM-5.2 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| LiveCodeBench ProSource | 82.9% | — | Not comparable |
| React Native EvalsSource | 78.9% | — | Not comparable |
| Vibe Code BenchSource | 32.03% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Coding IndexSource | 68.8% | 68.8% | Gemini 3.1 Pro leads |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 58.9% | 50.5% | Gemini 3.1 Pro leads |
| SWE-bench ProSource | — | 62.1% | Not comparable |
| NL2RepoSource | — | 48.9% | Not comparable |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | — | 81.0% | Not comparable |
| ProgramBenchSource | — | 63.7% | Not comparable |
| cursorBench32Source | — | 55.0% | Not comparable |
Reasoning3 benchmarks
Knowledge13 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.1 Pro | GLM-5.2 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQA-DSource | 94.3% | 91.2% | Gemini 3.1 Pro leads |
| HLE w/o toolsSource | 45.4% | 40.5% | Gemini 3.1 Pro leads |
| HealthBench HardSource | 20.6% | — | Not comparable |
| MedXpertQA (Text)Source | 71.5% | — | Not comparable |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 46.5% | 51.1% | GLM-5.2 leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 94.1% | 89.5% | Gemini 3.1 Pro leads |
| AA-HLESource | 44.7% | 40.1% | Gemini 3.1 Pro leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | 32.9% | 4.0% | Gemini 3.1 Pro leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 55.3% | 25.1% | Gemini 3.1 Pro leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 49.9% | 28.1% | GLM-5.2 leads |
| GPQASource | — | 91.2% | Not comparable |
| HLESource | — | 54.7% | Not comparable |
| AA Openness IndexSource | — | 44.4% | Not comparable |
MathGLM-5.2 wins6 benchmarks
Multilingual1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.1 Pro | GLM-5.2 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Global-MMLU-LiteSource | 93.2% | — | Not comparable |
Multimodal9 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.1 Pro | GLM-5.2 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMMU-ProSource | 83.9% | — | Not comparable |
| CharXivSource | 80.2% | — | Not comparable |
| ERQASource | 69.4% | — | Not comparable |
| SimpleVQASource | 72.4% | — | Not comparable |
| ScreenSpot ProSource | 84.4% | — | Not comparable |
| ZeroBenchSource | 29.0% | — | Not comparable |
| MedXpertQA (MM)Source | 81.3% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-MMMU-ProSource | 82.4% | — | Not comparable |
| Design Arena WebsiteSource | 1281 | 1340 | GLM-5.2 leads |
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.1 Pro | GLM-5.2 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | 77.1% | 73.3% | Gemini 3.1 Pro leads |
Frequently Asked Questions (2)
Which is better, Gemini 3.1 Pro or GLM-5.2?
GLM-5.2 is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 63.96 to 55.3.
Which is better for math, Gemini 3.1 Pro or GLM-5.2?
GLM-5.2 has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 95.9 versus 31.8. Gemini 3.1 Pro stays close enough that the answer can still flip depending on your workload.
Related Comparisons
Explore More
Choose a model with this week’s evidence
Join 2,000+ readers for ranking moves, pricing changes, and the claims that still need proof.
One email each week. Unsubscribe anytime.