Model comparison
GLM-5.2 vs Inkling
Head-to-head evidence from 24 shared benchmark results across 5 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: GLM-5.2 #37 (Estimated); Inkling #20 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. GLM-5.2 and Inkling share 24 comparable benchmark results. 4 of 8 categories are comparable. 19 results are unique to GLM-5.2; 8 to Inkling.
Updated July 23, 2026- Shared results
- 24
- GLM-5.2 only
- 19
- Inkling only
- 8
- Comparable categories
- 4 / 8
Pick Inkling if you want the stronger benchmark profile. GLM-5.2 only becomes the better choice if agentic is the priority or you want the cheaper token bill.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 24 shared benchmark results across 5 evidence categories; 4 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.
Why this result
Inkling is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 67.54 to 63.96. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
Inkling's sharpest advantage is in coding, where it averages 68.6 against 62.1. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is Terminal-Bench 2.0, 81% to 63.8%. GLM-5.2 does hit back in agentic, so the answer changes if that is the part of the workload you care about most.
Inkling is also the more expensive model on tokens at $1.87 input / $4.68 output per 1M tokens, versus $1.40 input / $4.40 output per 1M tokens for GLM-5.2. GLM-5.2 is the reasoning model in the pair, while Inkling 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 | GLM-5.2 | Δ | Inkling |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agentic | GLM-5.281.0 | Margin← 11.6 | Inkling69.4 |
| Knowledge | GLM-5.259.6 | Margin← 8.0 | Inkling51.6 |
| Coding | GLM-5.262.1 | Margin→ 6.5 | Inkling68.6 |
| Math | GLM-5.295.9 | Margin→ 1.2 | Inkling97.1 |
| Multimodal | GLM-5.2Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Inkling76.5 |
| Inst. Following | GLM-5.2Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Inkling79.8 |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
Terminal-Bench 2.0
AgenticA 81%B 63.8%Winner: GLM-5.2Δ 17.2Terminal-Bench 2.0: GLM-5.2 scored 81%; Inkling scored 63.8%. GLM-5.2 wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
HLE
KnowledgeA 54.7%B 46%Winner: GLM-5.2Δ 8.7HLE: GLM-5.2 scored 54.7%; Inkling scored 46%. GLM-5.2 wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
SWE-bench Pro
CodingA 62.1%B 54.3%Winner: GLM-5.2Δ 7.8SWE-bench Pro: GLM-5.2 scored 62.1%; Inkling scored 54.3%. GLM-5.2 wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
GPQA
KnowledgeA 91.2%B 87.9%Winner: GLM-5.2Δ 3.3GPQA: GLM-5.2 scored 91.2%; Inkling scored 87.9%. GLM-5.2 wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
AIME26
MathA 99.2%B 97.1%Winner: GLM-5.2Δ 2.1AIME26: GLM-5.2 scored 99.2%; Inkling scored 97.1%. GLM-5.2 wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | GLM-5.2 | Inkling | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | GLM-5.2$1.4 input / $4.4 output | Inkling$1.87 input / $4.68 output | GLM-5.2 has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | GLM-5.2Not available | InklingNot available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | GLM-5.2Not available | InklingNot available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | GLM-5.21M | Inkling1M | Listed context windows are equal. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
AgenticGLM-5.2 wins19 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GLM-5.2 | Inkling | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 81% | 63.8% | GLM-5.2 leads |
| MCP AtlasSource | 76.8% | 74.1% | GLM-5.2 leads |
| ToolathlonSource | 48.2% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | 43.1% | 32.3% | GLM-5.2 leads |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | 99.1% | — | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | 50.7% | 36.9% | GLM-5.2 leads |
| GDPval-AASource | 1514 | 1239 | GLM-5.2 leads |
| APEX-Agents-AASource | 33.7% | — | Not comparable |
| ResearchClawBenchSource | 20.7% | — | Not comparable |
| AA BriefcaseSource | 1260 | 836 | GLM-5.2 leads |
| 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% | 23.7% | GLM-5.2 leads |
| terminalBenchHardSource | 50.8% | — | Not comparable |
| aaTerminalBench21Source | 77.9% | — | Not comparable |
| BrowseCompSource | — | 77.1% | Not comparable |
| Design Arena Agentic Web DevSource | — | 1257 | Not comparable |
CodingInkling wins8 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GLM-5.2 | Inkling | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench ProSource | 62.1% | 54.3% | GLM-5.2 leads |
| NL2RepoSource | 48.9% | — | Not comparable |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 81.0% | 63.8% | GLM-5.2 leads |
| ProgramBenchSource | 63.7% | — | Not comparable |
| cursorBench32Source | 55.0% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Coding IndexSource | 68.8% | 52.1% | GLM-5.2 leads |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 50.5% | 46.1% | GLM-5.2 leads |
| SWE-bench VerifiedSource | — | 77.6% | Not comparable |
Reasoning2 benchmarks
KnowledgeGLM-5.2 wins11 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GLM-5.2 | Inkling | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQASource | 91.2% | 87.9% | GLM-5.2 leads |
| GPQA-DSource | 91.2% | 87.9% | GLM-5.2 leads |
| HLESource | 54.7% | 46% | GLM-5.2 leads |
| HLE w/o toolsSource | 40.5% | 30% | GLM-5.2 leads |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 51.1% | 40.7% | GLM-5.2 leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 89.5% | 87.2% | GLM-5.2 leads |
| AA-HLESource | 40.1% | 29.7% | GLM-5.2 leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | 4.0% | 2.1% | GLM-5.2 leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 25.1% | 40.0% | Inkling leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 28.1% | 63.1% | GLM-5.2 leads |
| AA Openness IndexSource | 44.4% | — | Not comparable |
MathInkling wins4 benchmarks
Multimodal5 benchmarks
Frequently Asked Questions (5)
Which is better, GLM-5.2 or Inkling?
Inkling is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 67.54 to 63.96. The biggest single separator in this matchup is Terminal-Bench 2.0, where the scores are 81% and 63.8%.
Which is better for knowledge tasks, GLM-5.2 or Inkling?
GLM-5.2 has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 59.6 versus 51.6. Inside this category, AA-Omniscience Hallucination Rate is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for coding, GLM-5.2 or Inkling?
Inkling has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 68.6 versus 62.1. Inside this category, Terminal-Bench 2.0 is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for math, GLM-5.2 or Inkling?
Inkling has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 97.1 versus 95.9. Inside this category, AIME26 is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for agentic tasks, GLM-5.2 or Inkling?
GLM-5.2 has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 81 versus 69.4. Inside this category, AA Briefcase is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
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.