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

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

LLM Comparison

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

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

AskClash compares GLM-5.2 and Composer 2.5 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 GLM-5.2 vs Composer 2.5 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 GLM-5.2 model page Composer 2.5 model page

Rank #12 vs #14AskClash overall scores 70.5 vs 67.0.

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

Open Weight vs ProprietaryZ.AI vs Cursor.

GLM-5.2 vs Composer 2.5 benchmark comparison

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

Metric	GLM-5.2	Composer 2.5
Overall Score	70.5	67.0
Leaderboard Rank	#12	#14
RWT	8.5	8.5
Coding Agent Index	74.4	51.8
HLE	54.7	—
GPQA	91.2	—
IFEval	73.3	—
SWE-Pro	62.1	47.0
SWE-Atlas	74.4	72.0
Terminal-Bench	82.7	69.3
DeepSWE	43.8	—
MCP Atlas	76.8	—
Tau2	99.1	—
Input Price (per 1M tokens)	$1.40	$0.50
Output Price (per 1M tokens)	$4.40	$2.50
Context Window	1M	200K
Benchmarks Published	11	4

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

GLM-5.2 leads 5 and Composer 2.5 leads 0 of 6 shared benchmarks. Composer 2.5 is cheaper on a defined 1M-input / 200K-output workload. Charts show only benchmarks both models publish.

GLM-5.2Composer 2.5

Overall

70.5GLM-5.2

67.0Composer 2.5

RWT

8.5GLM-5.2

8.5Composer 2.5

Coding Agent Index

74.4GLM-5.2

51.8Composer 2.5

SWE-Pro

62.1GLM-5.2

47.0Composer 2.5

SWE-Atlas

74.4GLM-5.2

72.0Composer 2.5

Terminal-Bench

82.7GLM-5.2

69.3Composer 2.5

GLM-5.2

Input$1.40

Output$4.40

Workload$2.28

Context1M

Composer 2.5

Input$0.50

Output$2.50

Workload$1.00

Context200K

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

More GLM-5.2 and Composer 2.5 comparisons

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

Claude Fable 5 vs GLM-5.2 Claude Fable 5 vs Composer 2.5 GPT-5.6 Sol vs GLM-5.2 GPT-5.6 Sol vs Composer 2.5 Kimi K3 vs GLM-5.2 Kimi K3 vs Composer 2.5 Claude Opus 4.8 vs GLM-5.2 Claude Opus 4.8 vs Composer 2.5 Grok 4.5 vs GLM-5.2 Grok 4.5 vs Composer 2.5

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.