Compare · ModelsLive · 2 picked · head to head
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview vs GLM 5.2
Side by side · benchmarks, pricing, and signals you can act on.
Winner summary
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview wins on 15/23 benchmarks
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview wins 15 of 23 shared benchmarks. Leads in reasoning · knowledge · general.
Category leads
speed·GLM 5.2reasoning·Gemini 3.1 Pro Previewarena·GLM 5.2knowledge·Gemini 3.1 Pro Previewcoding·GLM 5.2general·Gemini 3.1 Pro Previewmath·Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
Hype vs Reality
Attention vs performance
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
#137 by perf·#5 by attention
GLM 5.2
#67 by perf·#3 by attention
Best value
GLM 5.2
3.3x better value than Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
6.9 pts/$
$7.00/M
GLM 5.2
22.6 pts/$
$2.50/M
Vendor risk
Who is behind the model
Google DeepMind
$4.20T·Tier 1
z-ai
private · undisclosed
Head to head
23 benchmarks · 2 models
Gemini 3.1 Pro PreviewGLM 5.2
Artificial Analysis · Agentic Index
GLM 5.2 leads by +21.7
Artificial Analysis Agentic Index · a composite score measuring how well a model performs in agentic workflows · multi-step tool use, planning, error recovery, and autonomous task completion. Aggregates results from multiple agentic benchmarks including SWE-bench, tool-use tests, and planning evaluations. The canonical single-number metric for "how good is this model as an agent?"
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
21.4
GLM 5.2
43.1
Artificial Analysis · Coding Index
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview leads by +0.1
Artificial Analysis Coding Index · a composite score that aggregates performance across multiple coding benchmarks into a single index. Tracks code generation quality, debugging ability, multi-language competence, and real-world software engineering tasks. Used by Artificial Analysis to rank model coding capability in a normalized, comparable format. Useful for developers choosing between models for coding-heavy workloads.
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
68.8
GLM 5.2
68.8
Artificial Analysis · Quality Index
GLM 5.2 leads by +21.4
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
29.7
GLM 5.2
51.1
ARC-AGI
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview leads by +21.0
ARC-AGI · the original Abstraction and Reasoning Corpus, testing whether AI can solve novel visual pattern recognition tasks without memorization.
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
98.0
GLM 5.2
77.0
ARC-AGI-2
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview leads by +54.3
ARC-AGI-2 · the second iteration of the Abstraction and Reasoning Corpus, testing novel pattern recognition and abstract reasoning without prior training data.
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
77.1
GLM 5.2
22.8
Chatbot Arena Elo · Coding
GLM 5.2 leads by +147.0
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
1446.2
GLM 5.2
1593.3
Chatbot Arena Elo · Overall
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview leads by +16.0
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
1487.0
GLM 5.2
1471.0
Chess Puzzles
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview leads by +35.8
Chess Puzzles · tests strategic and tactical reasoning by having models solve chess puzzle positions, evaluating lookahead and pattern recognition abilities.
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
52.6
GLM 5.2
16.9
Deepswe
GLM 5.2 leads by +32.0
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
11.7
GLM 5.2
43.8
Dtbench
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview leads by +5.8
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
95.1
GLM 5.2
89.3
Ebr Bench
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview leads by +4.8
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
14.3
GLM 5.2
9.5
FrontierMath-Tier-4-v2-Private
GLM 5.2 leads by +2.4
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
26.8
GLM 5.2
29.3
FrontierMath-Tiers-1-3-v2-Private
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview leads by +0.4
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
59.6
GLM 5.2
59.2
GPQA diamond
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview leads by +3.5
Graduate-Level Google-Proof QA (Diamond set) · expert-crafted questions in physics, biology, and chemistry that are difficult even for domain PhDs.
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
92.6
GLM 5.2
89.1
Lmca
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview leads by +9.4
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
63.3
GLM 5.2
53.9
Mystery Game Puzzles
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview leads by +16.5
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
27.3
GLM 5.2
10.8
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview leads by +9.2
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 · simulated American Invitational Mathematics Examination problems testing advanced problem-solving skills.
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
95.6
GLM 5.2
86.4
PostTrainBench
GLM 5.2 leads by +9.7
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
22.0
GLM 5.2
31.7
Proofbench
GLM 5.2 leads by +9.0
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
26.0
GLM 5.2
35.0
SimpleBench
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview leads by +25.0
SimpleBench · tests fundamental reasoning capabilities with straightforward problems designed to expose gaps in basic logical and spatial thinking.
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
75.5
GLM 5.2
50.6
SimpleQA Verified
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview leads by +39.3
SimpleQA Verified · short factual questions with verified answers, measuring factual accuracy and the tendency to hallucinate or provide incorrect information.
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
73.5
GLM 5.2
34.2
SWE-Bench verified
GLM 5.2 leads by +3.1
SWE-bench Verified · 500 human-validated tasks from 12 real Python repositories (Django, Flask, scikit-learn, sympy, and others). Each task requires the model to produce a git patch that resolves a real GitHub issue and passes the test suite. The verified subset eliminates ambiguous tasks from the original SWE-bench. Claude Mythos Preview leads at 93.9%, crossing 90% for the first time in 2026. Opus 4.6 scores 80.8%. The benchmark remains the most-cited evaluation for code-generation capability.
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
75.6
GLM 5.2
78.7
WeirdML
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview leads by +1.9
WeirdML · tests models on unusual and adversarial machine learning tasks that require creative problem-solving beyond standard patterns.
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
72.1
GLM 5.2
70.1
Full benchmark table
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview | GLM 5.2 |
|---|---|---|
Artificial Analysis · Agentic Index Artificial Analysis Agentic Index · a composite score measuring how well a model performs in agentic workflows · multi-step tool use, planning, error recovery, and autonomous task completion. Aggregates results from multiple agentic benchmarks including SWE-bench, tool-use tests, and planning evaluations. The canonical single-number metric for "how good is this model as an agent?" | 21.4 | 43.1 |
Artificial Analysis · Coding Index Artificial Analysis Coding Index · a composite score that aggregates performance across multiple coding benchmarks into a single index. Tracks code generation quality, debugging ability, multi-language competence, and real-world software engineering tasks. Used by Artificial Analysis to rank model coding capability in a normalized, comparable format. Useful for developers choosing between models for coding-heavy workloads. | 68.8 | 68.8 |
Artificial Analysis · Quality Index | 29.7 | 51.1 |
ARC-AGI ARC-AGI · the original Abstraction and Reasoning Corpus, testing whether AI can solve novel visual pattern recognition tasks without memorization. | 98.0 | 77.0 |
ARC-AGI-2 ARC-AGI-2 · the second iteration of the Abstraction and Reasoning Corpus, testing novel pattern recognition and abstract reasoning without prior training data. | 77.1 | 22.8 |
Chatbot Arena Elo · Coding | 1446.2 | 1593.3 |
Chatbot Arena Elo · Overall | 1487.0 | 1471.0 |
Chess Puzzles Chess Puzzles · tests strategic and tactical reasoning by having models solve chess puzzle positions, evaluating lookahead and pattern recognition abilities. | 52.6 | 16.9 |
Deepswe | 11.7 | 43.8 |
Dtbench | 95.1 | 89.3 |
Ebr Bench | 14.3 | 9.5 |
FrontierMath-Tier-4-v2-Private | 26.8 | 29.3 |
FrontierMath-Tiers-1-3-v2-Private | 59.6 | 59.2 |
GPQA diamond Graduate-Level Google-Proof QA (Diamond set) · expert-crafted questions in physics, biology, and chemistry that are difficult even for domain PhDs. | 92.6 | 89.1 |
Lmca | 63.3 | 53.9 |
Mystery Game Puzzles | 27.3 | 10.8 |
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 · simulated American Invitational Mathematics Examination problems testing advanced problem-solving skills. | 95.6 | 86.4 |
PostTrainBench | 22.0 | 31.7 |
Proofbench | 26.0 | 35.0 |
SimpleBench SimpleBench · tests fundamental reasoning capabilities with straightforward problems designed to expose gaps in basic logical and spatial thinking. | 75.5 | 50.6 |
SimpleQA Verified SimpleQA Verified · short factual questions with verified answers, measuring factual accuracy and the tendency to hallucinate or provide incorrect information. | 73.5 | 34.2 |
SWE-Bench verified SWE-bench Verified · 500 human-validated tasks from 12 real Python repositories (Django, Flask, scikit-learn, sympy, and others). Each task requires the model to produce a git patch that resolves a real GitHub issue and passes the test suite. The verified subset eliminates ambiguous tasks from the original SWE-bench. Claude Mythos Preview leads at 93.9%, crossing 90% for the first time in 2026. Opus 4.6 scores 80.8%. The benchmark remains the most-cited evaluation for code-generation capability. | 75.6 | 78.7 |
WeirdML WeirdML · tests models on unusual and adversarial machine learning tasks that require creative problem-solving beyond standard patterns. | 72.1 | 70.1 |
Pricing · per 1M tokens · projected $/mo at 10M tokens
| Model | Input | Output | Context | Projected $/mo |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| $2.00 | $12.00 | 1.0M tokens (~524 books) | $45.00 | |
| $1.00 | $4.00 | 1.0M tokens (~524 books) | $17.50 |