How do Composer 2.5 and GLM-5.2 compare on coding benchmarks?

The comparison table shows SWE-bench, SWE-Pro, SWE-Atlas, Terminal-Bench, DeepSWE, and coding agent index scores for both Composer 2.5 and GLM-5.2 when publicly disclosed.

LLM Comparison

Composer 2.5 vs GLM-5.2: benchmark scores, pricing & comparison.

Q: Which is better: Composer 2.5 or GLM-5.2?

AskClash compares Composer 2.5 and GLM-5.2 side by side across SWE-bench, GPQA, HLE, Terminal-Bench, coding agent scores, token pricing, and context window so you can see which model wins on each benchmark.

Side-by-side Composer 2.5 vs GLM-5.2 comparison across SWE-bench, GPQA, HLE, Terminal-Bench, coding agent scores, token pricing, context window, and AskClash RWT. Green marks the winner on each benchmark.

Open live leaderboard Composer 2.5 model page GLM-5.2 model page

Rank #11 vs #17AskClash overall scores 67.0 vs 54.8.

Pricing $0.50/$2.50 vs $1.40/$4.40Input and output token prices per 1M tokens when published.

Proprietary vs Open WeightCursor vs Z.AI.

Composer 2.5 vs GLM-5.2 benchmark comparison

Green cells highlight the winning model for each metric. Scores are cached from the AskClash LLM leaderboard snapshot.

Metric	Composer 2.5	GLM-5.2
Overall Score	67.0	54.8
Leaderboard Rank	#11	#17
RWT	8.5	8.5
Coding Agent Index	38.2	74.4
HLE	—	54.7
GPQA	—	91.2
IFEval	—	73.3
SWE-Pro	47.0	62.1
SWE-Atlas	72.0	74.4
Terminal-Bench	69.3	82.7
DeepSWE	—	43.8
MCP Atlas	—	76.8
Tau2	—	99.1
Input Price (per 1M tokens)	$0.50	$1.40
Output Price (per 1M tokens)	$2.50	$4.40
Context Window	200K	1M
Benchmarks Published	5	11

Composer 2.5 vs GLM-5.2 head-to-head charts

Composer 2.5 leads 1 and GLM-5.2 leads 4 of 6 shared benchmarks. Composer 2.5 is cheaper on a defined 1M-input / 200K-output workload. Charts show only benchmarks both models publish.

Composer 2.5GLM-5.2

Overall

67.0Composer 2.5

54.8GLM-5.2

RWT

8.5Composer 2.5

8.5GLM-5.2

Coding Agent Index

38.2Composer 2.5

74.4GLM-5.2

SWE-Pro

47.0Composer 2.5

62.1GLM-5.2

SWE-Atlas

72.0Composer 2.5

74.4GLM-5.2

Terminal-Bench

69.3Composer 2.5

82.7GLM-5.2

Composer 2.5

Input$0.50

Output$2.50

Workload$1.00

Context200K

GLM-5.2

Input$1.40

Output$4.40

Workload$2.28

Context1M

Workload = published cost of 1M input + 200K output tokens. Open the live leaderboard for interactive compare charts.

More Composer 2.5 and GLM-5.2 comparisons

Explore how Composer 2.5 and GLM-5.2 stack up against other top-ranked LLMs.

Claude Opus 5 vs Composer 2.5 Claude Opus 5 vs GLM-5.2 Claude Fable 5 vs Composer 2.5 Claude Fable 5 vs GLM-5.2 GPT-5.6 Sol vs Composer 2.5 GPT-5.6 Sol vs GLM-5.2 Kimi K3 vs Composer 2.5 Kimi K3 vs GLM-5.2 Claude Opus 4.8 vs Composer 2.5 Claude Opus 4.8 vs GLM-5.2

How to read this comparison

Benchmark scores

Higher is better for all benchmark scores (SWE-bench, GPQA, HLE, Terminal-Bench, etc.). Green marks the model with the higher score.

Token pricing

Lower is better for input and output prices. Green marks the cheaper model per 1M tokens.

Coverage matters

Models with fewer disclosed benchmark cells may have inflated percentile scores. Check the benchmark cell count for context.

This comparison page is generated from the AskClash LLM leaderboard cache. Open the live leaderboard for real-time scores and interactive filtering.