Which is better: Muse Wonder or GLM-5.2?

Verdict: Muse Wonder ranks higher (#11 vs #33) and wins 3 of 4 shared benchmarks; GLM-5.2 costs less ($1.40/$4.40 vs $4.00/$20.0 per 1M tokens). AskClash compares Muse Wonder 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 Muse Wonder 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 Muse Wonder and GLM-5.2 when publicly disclosed.

LLM Comparison

Muse Wonder vs GLM-5.2: benchmark scores, pricing & comparison.

Side-by-side Muse Wonder 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: Muse Wonder ranks higher (#11 vs #33) and wins 3 of 4 shared benchmarks; GLM-5.2 costs less ($1.40/$4.40 vs $4.00/$20.0 per 1M tokens).

Open live leaderboard Muse Wonder model page GLM-5.2 model page

Rank #11 vs #33AskClash overall scores 64.7 vs 52.5.

Pricing $4.00/$20.0 vs $1.40/$4.40Input and output token prices per 1M tokens when published.

Proprietary vs Open WeightMeta vs Z.AI.

Muse Wonder 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	Muse Wonder	GLM-5.2
Overall Score	64.7	52.5
Leaderboard Rank	#11	#33
ACB	62.3	—
RWT	—	8.5
Coding Agent Index	—	74.4
HLE	50.1	54.7
GPQA	—	91.2
IFEval	—	73.3
SWE-Pro	—	62.1
SWE-Atlas	—	74.4
Terminal-Bench	52.0	—
DeepSWE	78.8	43.8
GDPval-AA	1770.3	1371.4
MCP Atlas	—	76.8
Finance Agent	56.6	49.7
Tau2	—	99.1
Input Price (per 1M tokens)	$4.00	$1.40
Output Price (per 1M tokens)	$20.0	$4.40
Context Window	1M	1M
Benchmarks Published	9	12

Muse Wonder vs GLM-5.2 head-to-head charts

Muse Wonder leads 4 and GLM-5.2 leads 1 of 5 shared benchmarks. GLM-5.2 is cheaper on a defined 1M-input / 200K-output workload. Charts show only benchmarks both models publish.

Muse WonderGLM-5.2

Overall

64.7Muse Wonder

52.5GLM-5.2

HLE

50.1Muse Wonder

54.7GLM-5.2

DeepSWE

78.8Muse Wonder

43.8GLM-5.2

GDPval-AA

1770.3Muse Wonder

1371.4GLM-5.2

Finance Agent

56.6Muse Wonder

49.7GLM-5.2

Muse Wonder

Input$4.00

Output$20.0

Workload$8.00

Context1M

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 Muse Wonder and GLM-5.2 comparisons

Explore how Muse Wonder and GLM-5.2 stack up against other top-ranked LLMs.

Claude Opus 5.5 vs Muse Wonder Claude Opus 5.5 vs GLM-5.2 Claude Fable 5.1 vs Muse Wonder Claude Fable 5.1 vs GLM-5.2 Claude Sonnet 5.5 vs Muse Wonder Claude Sonnet 5.5 vs GLM-5.2 Claude Opus 5 vs Muse Wonder Claude Opus 5 vs GLM-5.2 Claude Fable 5 vs Muse Wonder 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.