Skip to main content
BenchLM
Advertise

Model comparison

GLM-5.2 vs Muse Spark 1.1

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 26 shared benchmark results across 5 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

63.96/100
Margin
13.5pts
winning →
77.44/100
2 category wins1 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: GLM-5.2 #37 (Estimated); Muse Spark 1.1 #6 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. GLM-5.2 and Muse Spark 1.1 share 26 comparable benchmark results. 3 of 8 categories are comparable. 17 results are unique to GLM-5.2; 13 to Muse Spark 1.1.

Updated July 23, 2026
Shared results
26
GLM-5.2 only
17
Muse Spark 1.1 only
13
Comparable categories
3 / 8

Pick Muse Spark 1.1 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. GLM-5.2 only becomes the better choice if coding is the priority.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 26 shared benchmark results across 5 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

Muse Spark 1.1 is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 77.44 to 63.96. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.

Muse Spark 1.1's sharpest advantage is in knowledge, where it averages 62.1 against 59.6. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is HLE, 54.7% to 62.1%. GLM-5.2 does hit back in coding, so the answer changes if that is the part of the workload you care about most.

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 scores and score margins for GLM-5.2 and Muse Spark 1.1
CategoryGLM-5.2ΔMuse Spark 1.1
KnowledgeGLM-5.259.6Margin→ 2.5Muse Spark 1.162.1
CodingGLM-5.262.1Margin← 0.6Muse Spark 1.161.5
AgenticGLM-5.281.0Margin← 0.6Muse Spark 1.180.4
MathGLM-5.295.9MarginNo overlapMuse Spark 1.1Not measured
MultimodalGLM-5.2Not measuredMarginNo overlapMuse Spark 1.188.4

Decisive benchmark drivers

The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.

More
A · GLM-5.2B · Muse Spark 1.1

  1. HLE

    Knowledge
    Source ↗
    A 54.7%B 62.1%
    Winner: Muse Spark 1.1Δ 7.4
    HLE: GLM-5.2 scored 54.7%; Muse Spark 1.1 scored 62.1%. Muse Spark 1.1 wins this benchmark.

  2. Terminal-Bench 2.0

    Agentic
    Source ↗
    A 81%B 80%
    Winner: GLM-5.2Δ 1
    Terminal-Bench 2.0: GLM-5.2 scored 81%; Muse Spark 1.1 scored 80%. GLM-5.2 wins this benchmark.

  3. SWE-bench Pro

    Coding
    Source ↗
    A 62.1%B 61.5%
    Winner: GLM-5.2Δ 0.6
    SWE-bench Pro: GLM-5.2 scored 62.1%; Muse Spark 1.1 scored 61.5%. GLM-5.2 wins this benchmark.

Operational comparison

Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.

MetricGLM-5.2Muse Spark 1.1Comparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensGLM-5.2$1.4 input / $4.4 outputMuse Spark 1.1Not availableA complete price comparison is not available.
Generation speedtokens per secondGLM-5.2Not availableMuse Spark 1.1Not availableA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenGLM-5.2Not availableMuse Spark 1.1Not availableA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensGLM-5.21MMuse Spark 1.11MListed context windows are equal.

Benchmark Deep Dive

AgenticGLM-5.2 wins
BenchmarkGLM-5.2Muse Spark 1.1Result
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 81%80%GLM-5.2 leads
MCP AtlasSource 76.8%88.1%Muse Spark 1.1 leads
ToolathlonSource 48.2%75.6%Muse Spark 1.1 leads
AA Agentic IndexSource 43.1%37.5%GLM-5.2 leads
τ²-bench resultsSource 99.1%—Not comparable
GDPval-AASource 50.7%43.7%GLM-5.2 leads
GDPval-AASource 15141374GLM-5.2 leads
APEX-Agents-AASource 33.7%—Not comparable
ResearchClawBenchSource 20.7%—Not comparable
AA BriefcaseSource 1260863GLM-5.2 leads
AA AutomationBenchSource 27.8%42.8%Muse Spark 1.1 leads
AA EnterpriseOps-GymSource 42.7%—Not comparable
AA Harvey LABSource 91.0%93.1%Muse Spark 1.1 leads
AA ITBenchSource 42.7%—Not comparable
AA Tau3 BankingSource 26.8%25.2%GLM-5.2 leads
terminalBenchHardSource 50.8%—Not comparable
aaTerminalBench21Source 77.9%77.9%Tie
OSWorld-VerifiedSource —80.8%Not comparable
DeepSearchQASource —84.9%Not comparable
CyberGymSource —59.0%Not comparable
Finance Agent v2Source —57.2%Not comparable
deepSweSource —53.3%Not comparable
OSWorld 2.0Source —14.2%Not comparable
JobBenchSource —54.7%Not comparable
CybenchSource —92.9%Not comparable
ExploitGymSource —0.8%Not comparable
CodingGLM-5.2 wins
BenchmarkGLM-5.2Muse Spark 1.1Result
SWE-bench ProSource 62.1%61.5%GLM-5.2 leads
NL2RepoSource 48.9%—Not comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 81.0%80.0%GLM-5.2 leads
ProgramBenchSource 63.7%—Not comparable
cursorBench32Source 55.0%—Not comparable
AA Coding IndexSource 68.8%71.3%Muse Spark 1.1 leads
AA-SciCodeSource 50.5%58.2%Muse Spark 1.1 leads
Reasoning
BenchmarkGLM-5.2Muse Spark 1.1Result
CritPtSource 20.9%15.1%GLM-5.2 leads
AA-LCRSource 71.3%63.3%GLM-5.2 leads
MRCR 1MSource —54.1%Not comparable
KnowledgeMuse Spark 1.1 wins
BenchmarkGLM-5.2Muse Spark 1.1Result
GPQASource 91.2%—Not comparable
GPQA-DSource 91.2%—Not comparable
HLESource 54.7%62.1%Muse Spark 1.1 leads
HLE w/o toolsSource 40.5%52.2%Muse Spark 1.1 leads
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource 51.1%50.6%GLM-5.2 leads
AA-GPQA DiamondSource 89.5%89.8%Muse Spark 1.1 leads
AA-HLESource 40.1%45.1%Muse Spark 1.1 leads
AA-Omniscience IndexSource 4.0%18.0%Muse Spark 1.1 leads
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource 25.1%40.6%Muse Spark 1.1 leads
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource 28.1%38.1%GLM-5.2 leads
AA Openness IndexSource 44.4%—Not comparable
HealthBench ProfessionalSource —59.3%Not comparable
Math
BenchmarkGLM-5.2Muse Spark 1.1Result
AIME26Source 99.2%—Not comparable
HMMT Nov 2025Source 94.4%—Not comparable
HMMT Feb 2026Source 92.5%—Not comparable
MMAnswerBenchSource 91.0%—Not comparable
Multimodal
BenchmarkGLM-5.2Muse Spark 1.1Result
Design Arena WebsiteSource 13401299GLM-5.2 leads
CharXivSource —88.4%Not comparable
BabyVisionSource —76.3%Not comparable
Inst. Following
BenchmarkGLM-5.2Muse Spark 1.1Result
AA-IFBenchSource 73.3%—Not comparable
Frequently Asked Questions (4)

Which is better, GLM-5.2 or Muse Spark 1.1?

Muse Spark 1.1 is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 77.44 to 63.96. The biggest single separator in this matchup is HLE, where the scores are 54.7% and 62.1%.

Which is better for knowledge tasks, GLM-5.2 or Muse Spark 1.1?

Muse Spark 1.1 has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 62.1 versus 59.6. Inside this category, AA-Omniscience Accuracy is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for coding, GLM-5.2 or Muse Spark 1.1?

GLM-5.2 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 62.1 versus 61.5. Inside this category, AA-SciCode is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for agentic tasks, GLM-5.2 or Muse Spark 1.1?

GLM-5.2 has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 81 versus 80.4. Inside this category, AA Briefcase is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Related Comparisons

Explore More

Z.AI Compare Pricing Methodology Find Your Best LLM Overall Rankings
Last updated: July 23, 2026

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.