GLM 5.2 vs Qwen3.8 Max
GLM 5.2 
Qwen3.8 Max Verdict
- Qwen3.8 Max (max) leads on quality: 64.2 vs 62.6.
- GLM 5.2 (max) is stronger in agents & tools, instruction following.
- Qwen3.8 Max (max) is stronger in coding, composite, human preference, knowledge, long context, maths, reasoning, multimodal.
- GLM 5.2 (max) is 1.4× cheaper ($2.15 vs $3.00 per 1M blended).
- GLM 5.2 (max) streams 2.2× faster (82 vs 37 tokens per second).
| Metric | GLM 5.2 (max) | Qwen3.8 Max (max) |
|---|---|---|
| BenchLeader Index | 62.6 | 64.2 |
| Agents & tools score | 62.9 | 58.2 |
| Coding score | 62.4 | 64.6 |
| Composite score | 67.7 | 70.7 |
| Human preference score | 67.0 | 68.0 |
| Instruction following score | 71.6 | – |
| Knowledge score | 54.0 | 62.7 |
| Long context score | 64.3 | 65.4 |
| Maths score | 57.7 | 65.1 |
| Reasoning score | 70.2 | 72.2 |
| Multimodal score | – | 66.2 |
| Blended price $/M | $2.15 | $3.00 |
| Output speed | 82 tok/s | 37 tok/s |
| Time to first answer | 28.4 s | 58.9 s |
| Context window | 1M | 1M |
| GPQA Diamond | 91.9% | – |
| FrontierMath Tiers 1–3 | 59.2% | – |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 29.3% | – |
| OTIS Mock AIME | 86.4% | – |
| SWE-bench Verified (Epoch) | 78.7% | – |
| SimpleQA Verified | 34.2% | – |
| Terminal-Bench | – | 27.0% |
| SciCode | 50.5% | 53.2% |
| WeirdML | 70.1% | – |
| APEX-Agents | – | 63.3% |
| ProofBench | 35.0% | 58.0% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | – | 156.4 |
| LMArena Text | 1475 | 1483 |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1495 | 1504 |
| LMArena Coding | 1512 | 1524 |
| LMArena WebDev | 1603 | 1672 |
| LMArena Vision | – | 1314 |
| LMArena Agent | 3.2 | 2.3 |
| LiveBench | – | 78.5% |
| LiveBench Reasoning | – | 88.2% |
| LiveBench Coding | – | 72.9% |
| LiveBench Agentic Coding | – | 64.7% |
| LiveBench Mathematics | – | 91.3% |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | – | 78.4% |
| LiveBench Language | – | 79.7% |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | – | 74.1% |
| AA Intelligence Index v4.3.2 | 33.7 | 45.4 |
| IFBench | 73.3% | – |
| AA-LCR | 78.3% | 80.3% |
| MMMU-Pro | – | 82.8% |
| AA-Omniscience | 4.4 | 12.0 |
| Terminal-Bench Hard | 50.8% | – |
| GPQA Diamond (AA) | 89.5% | 92.8% |
| Humanity's Last Exam (AA) | 41.1% | 43.1% |
| SciCode (AA) | 51.2% | 53.2% |
| τ²-Bench Telecom (AA) | 99.1% | – |
| LiveCodeBench | – | 87.8% |
| MMLU-Pro | – | 88.6% |
| IOI | – | 68.9% |
| LegalBench | – | 83.6% |
| CorpFin | – | 65.8% |
| TaxEval | – | 75.5% |
| Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals) | 67.8% | 67.4% |
| SWE-bench (Vals) | 82.8% | 85.6% |
| GPQA Diamond (Vals) | – | 93.7% |
| Vals Index | – | 48.3 |
| CritPt | 20.9% | 20.0% |
| GDPval-AA v2.1 | 43.7% | 58.6% |
| τ³-Banking (AA) | 34.6% | 51.3% |
| ITBench SRE (AA) | 42.7% | 40.3% |
| Analyst Agent (AA) | – | 45.0% |
| APEX-Agents (AA) | 33.7% | 42.4% |
| Code Migration | 37.9% | 24.0% |
| CyberBench | – | 28.6% |
| Excel Modeling Benchmark | – | 60.1% |
| Finance Agent v2 | – | 50.6% |
| Harvey's Legal Agent Benchmark | – | 10.4% |
| Legal Research Bench | 31.3% | 47.6% |
| MedCode | – | 40.7% |
| MedScribe | – | 85.0% |
| MMMU-Pro (Vals) | – | 88.0% |
| MortgageTax | – | 64.0% |
| MysteryMechanism | – | 23.9% |
| ProgramBench | 0.5% | 0.0% |
| Public Benefits Bench | – | 67.1% |
| SAGE | – | 51.3% |
| SkillsBench | 45.1% | 42.0% |
| SREBench | 0.0% | – |
| Tax Agent Bench | – | 66.0% |
| Terminal-Bench 4.0 (Vals) | – | 34.3% |
| Terminal-Bench Science | – | 1.4% |
| Vals Multimodal Index | – | 65.4% |
| Vibe Code Bench 1-100 | – | 12.8% |
| Vibe Code Bench v1.1 | 64.0% | 64.7% |
| LMArena Maths | 1486 | 1497 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1453 | 1470 |
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1469 | 1474 |
| LMArena Multi-turn | 1475 | 1492 |
| LMArena Longer Queries | 1486 | 1492 |
| Chess Puzzles | 21.0% | – |
| EBR-bench | 9.5% | – |
| PostTrainBench | 31.7% | – |
| DeepSWE v1.1 | 43.8% | – |
| LMCA | 45.8% | – |
| DTBench | 93.6% | – |
| ALE-Bench | 1010.2 | – |
| Terminal-Bench 4.0 (AA) | 1.0% | 38.9% |
| Terminal-Bench 2.1 (AA) | 77.9% | 88.8% |
| AutomationBench | – | 56.2% |
| GDP.pdf | – | 22.8% |
| MLCR | – | 20.0% |
| EnterpriseOps-Gym | – | 47.6% |
| AA-Omniscience: accuracy | 24.3% | 31.9% |
| AA-Omniscience: non-hallucination | 73.7% | 71.2% |
| AA-Briefcase v1.1 | – | 1617 |
Data as of 2026-10-11. Best configuration of each model; every score links to its source on the model pages.
GLM 5.2 vs Qwen3.8 Max: questions
- Is GLM 5.2 better than Qwen3.8 Max?
- Qwen3.8 Max (max) leads on quality: 64.2 vs 62.6. The BenchLeader Index combines every independent quality benchmark; Qwen3.8 Max (max) is ahead overall as of 2026-10-11, but check the category scores for your use.
- Is GLM 5.2 better than Qwen3.8 Max for coding?
- Qwen3.8 Max scores higher in coding (65 vs 62 on the category index, where 50 is average).
- Is GLM 5.2 better than Qwen3.8 Max for agentic tasks?
- GLM 5.2 scores higher in agentic tasks (63 vs 58 on the category index, where 50 is average).
- Which is cheaper, GLM 5.2 or Qwen3.8 Max?
- GLM 5.2 is cheaper: $2.15 against $3.00 per million tokens, blended at three input tokens per output token.
- Which is faster, GLM 5.2 or Qwen3.8 Max?
- GLM 5.2 streams faster: 82 against 37 output tokens per second.
- Which has the larger context window?
- Both accept 1M tokens of context.