Model comparison
GLM-5.2 vs GPT-5.4 Pro
Head-to-head evidence from 3 shared benchmark results across 2 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: GLM-5.2 #37 (Estimated); GPT-5.4 Pro #44 (Estimated). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. GLM-5.2 and GPT-5.4 Pro share 3 comparable benchmark results. 3 of 8 categories are comparable. 40 results are unique to GLM-5.2; 9 to GPT-5.4 Pro.
Updated July 23, 2026- Shared results
- 3
- GLM-5.2 only
- 40
- GPT-5.4 Pro only
- 9
- Comparable categories
- 3 / 8
Pick GLM-5.2 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. GPT-5.4 Pro only becomes the better choice if agentic is the priority or you need the larger 1.05M context window.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 3 shared benchmark results across 2 evidence categories; 3 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 60.89. 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 46.9. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is HLE, 54.7% to 58.7%. GPT-5.4 Pro does hit back in agentic, so the answer changes if that is the part of the workload you care about most.
GPT-5.4 Pro is also the more expensive model on tokens at $30.00 input / $180.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $1.40 input / $4.40 output per 1M tokens for GLM-5.2. That is roughly 40.9x on output cost alone. GPT-5.4 Pro gives you the larger context window at 1.05M, compared with 1M for GLM-5.2.
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 | GLM-5.2 | Δ | GPT-5.4 Pro |
|---|---|---|---|
| Math | GLM-5.295.9 | Margin← 49.0 | GPT-5.4 Pro46.9 |
| Agentic | GLM-5.281.0 | Margin→ 8.3 | GPT-5.4 Pro89.3 |
| Knowledge | GLM-5.259.6 | Margin← 0.9 | GPT-5.4 Pro58.7 |
| Coding | GLM-5.262.1 | MarginNo overlap | GPT-5.4 ProNot measured |
| Reasoning | GLM-5.2Not measured | MarginNo overlap | GPT-5.4 Pro83.3 |
| Multimodal | GLM-5.2Not measured | MarginNo overlap | GPT-5.4 Pro94.0 |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
HLE
KnowledgeA 54.7%B 58.7%Winner: GPT-5.4 ProΔ 4HLE: GLM-5.2 scored 54.7%; GPT-5.4 Pro scored 58.7%. GPT-5.4 Pro wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | GLM-5.2 | GPT-5.4 Pro | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | GLM-5.2$1.4 input / $4.4 output | GPT-5.4 Pro$30 input / $180 output | GLM-5.2 has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | GLM-5.2Not available | GPT-5.4 Pro74 tok/s | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | GLM-5.2Not available | GPT-5.4 Pro151.79 s | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | GLM-5.21M | GPT-5.4 Pro1.05M | GPT-5.4 Pro lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
AgenticGPT-5.4 Pro wins18 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GLM-5.2 | GPT-5.4 Pro | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 81% | — | Not comparable |
| MCP AtlasSource | 76.8% | — | Not comparable |
| ToolathlonSource | 48.2% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | 43.1% | — | Not comparable |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | 99.1% | — | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | 50.7% | — | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | 1514 | — | Not comparable |
| APEX-Agents-AASource | 33.7% | — | Not comparable |
| ResearchClawBenchSource | 20.7% | — | Not comparable |
| AA BriefcaseSource | 1260 | — | Not comparable |
| AA AutomationBenchSource | 27.8% | — | Not comparable |
| AA EnterpriseOps-GymSource | 42.7% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Harvey LABSource | 91.0% | — | Not comparable |
| AA ITBenchSource | 42.7% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Tau3 BankingSource | 26.8% | — | Not comparable |
| terminalBenchHardSource | 50.8% | — | Not comparable |
| aaTerminalBench21Source | 77.9% | — | Not comparable |
| BrowseCompSource | — | 89.3% | Not comparable |
Coding7 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GLM-5.2 | GPT-5.4 Pro | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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 |
| AA Coding IndexSource | 68.8% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 50.5% | — | Not comparable |
Reasoning3 benchmarks
KnowledgeGLM-5.2 wins13 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GLM-5.2 | GPT-5.4 Pro | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQASource | 91.2% | — | Not comparable |
| GPQA-DSource | 91.2% | — | Not comparable |
| HLESource | 54.7% | 58.7% | GPT-5.4 Pro leads |
| HLE w/o toolsSource | 40.5% | 42.7% | GPT-5.4 Pro leads |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 51.1% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 89.5% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-HLESource | 40.1% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | 4.0% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 25.1% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 28.1% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Openness IndexSource | 44.4% | — | Not comparable |
| FrontierScienceSource | — | 36.7% | Not comparable |
| FrontierScience ResearchSource | — | 36.7% | Not comparable |
MathGLM-5.2 wins8 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GLM-5.2 | GPT-5.4 Pro | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AIME26Source | 99.2% | — | Not comparable |
| HMMT Nov 2025Source | 94.4% | — | Not comparable |
| HMMT Feb 2026Source | 92.5% | — | Not comparable |
| MMAnswerBenchSource | 91.0% | — | Not comparable |
| IPhO 2025 (Theory)Source | — | 93.5% | Not comparable |
| FrontierMath (legacy)Source | — | 50% | Not comparable |
| FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source | — | 50.000% | Not comparable |
| FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source | — | 37.500% | Not comparable |
Multimodal2 benchmarks
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GLM-5.2 | GPT-5.4 Pro | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | 73.3% | — | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (4)
Which is better, GLM-5.2 or GPT-5.4 Pro?
GLM-5.2 is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 63.96 to 60.89. The biggest single separator in this matchup is HLE, where the scores are 54.7% and 58.7%.
Which is better for knowledge tasks, GLM-5.2 or GPT-5.4 Pro?
GLM-5.2 has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 59.6 versus 58.7. Inside this category, HLE is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for math, GLM-5.2 or GPT-5.4 Pro?
GLM-5.2 has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 95.9 versus 46.9. GPT-5.4 Pro stays close enough that the answer can still flip depending on your workload.
Which is better for agentic tasks, GLM-5.2 or GPT-5.4 Pro?
GPT-5.4 Pro has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 89.3 versus 81. GLM-5.2 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.