Which is better: Grok 4.5 or GLM-5.2?

Verdict: Grok 4.5 ranks higher (#30 vs #31) and wins 6 of 8 shared benchmarks; GLM-5.2 costs less ($1.40/$4.40 vs $2.00/$6.00 per 1M tokens). AskClash compares Grok 4.5 and GLM-5.2 side by side across SWE-bench, GPQA, HLE, Terminal-Bench, coding agent scores, token pricing, AskClash ACB, and context window so you can see which model wins on each benchmark.

How do Grok 4.5 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 Grok 4.5 and GLM-5.2 when publicly disclosed.

LLM Comparison

Grok 4.5 vs GLM-5.2: benchmark scores, pricing & comparison.

Side-by-side Grok 4.5 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.

Verdict: Grok 4.5 ranks higher (#30 vs #31) and wins 6 of 8 shared benchmarks; GLM-5.2 costs less ($1.40/$4.40 vs $2.00/$6.00 per 1M tokens).

Open live leaderboard Grok 4.5 model page GLM-5.2 model page

Rank #30 vs #31AskClash overall scores 52.7 vs 52.7.

Pricing $2.00/$6.00 vs $1.40/$4.40Input and output token prices per 1M tokens when published.

Proprietary vs Open WeightxAI vs Z.AI.

Grok 4.5 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	Grok 4.5	GLM-5.2
Overall Score	52.7	52.7
Leaderboard Rank	#30	#31
ACB	57.6	—
RWT	9.0	8.5
Coding Agent Index	76.4	74.4
HLE	40.3	54.7
GPQA	93.1	91.2
IFEval	—	73.3
SWE-Pro	64.7	62.1
SWE-Atlas	83.9	74.4
Terminal-Bench	10.6	—
DeepSWE	—	43.8
GDPval-AA	1542.8	1373.9
MCP Atlas	—	76.8
Finance Agent	48.3	49.7
MMMU-Pro	80.4	—
ARC-AGI 2	52.6	—
Tau2	—	99.1
Input Price (per 1M tokens)	$2.00	$1.40
Output Price (per 1M tokens)	$6.00	$4.40
Context Window	500K	1M
Benchmarks Published	14	12

Grok 4.5 vs GLM-5.2 head-to-head charts

Grok 4.5 leads 7 and GLM-5.2 leads 2 of 9 shared benchmarks. GLM-5.2 is cheaper on a defined 1M-input / 200K-output workload. Charts show only benchmarks both models publish.

Grok 4.5GLM-5.2

Overall

52.7Grok 4.5

52.7GLM-5.2

RWT

9.0Grok 4.5

8.5GLM-5.2

Coding Agent Index

76.4Grok 4.5

74.4GLM-5.2

HLE

40.3Grok 4.5

54.7GLM-5.2

GPQA

93.1Grok 4.5

91.2GLM-5.2

SWE-Pro

64.7Grok 4.5

62.1GLM-5.2

SWE-Atlas

83.9Grok 4.5

74.4GLM-5.2

GDPval-AA

1542.8Grok 4.5

1373.9GLM-5.2

Finance Agent

48.3Grok 4.5

49.7GLM-5.2

Grok 4.5

Input$2.00

Output$6.00

Workload$3.20

Context500K

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 Grok 4.5 and GLM-5.2 comparisons

Explore how Grok 4.5 and GLM-5.2 stack up against other top-ranked LLMs.

Claude Opus 5.5 vs Grok 4.5 Claude Opus 5.5 vs GLM-5.2 Claude Fable 5.1 vs Grok 4.5 Claude Fable 5.1 vs GLM-5.2 Claude Opus 5 vs Grok 4.5 Claude Opus 5 vs GLM-5.2 Claude Sonnet 5.5 vs Grok 4.5 Claude Sonnet 5.5 vs GLM-5.2 Claude Fable 5 vs Grok 4.5 Claude Fable 5 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.