Reasoning benchmarks
HLE, CritPt, AIME 2026, HMMT, GPQA-Diamond, IMOAnswerBench.
About this data
GLM-5.2 is highly competitive on reasoning — it tops the field on AIME 2026 (99.2) and IMOAnswerBench, and sits close to the frontier on GPQA-Diamond and HMMT. HLE remains the hardest gap to the closed leaders. Some competitor HLE/CritPt cells are full-set scores, as noted in the source footnotes.
Score (higher = better). GLM-5.2 leads on AIME 2026; competitive across the board.
View data & sources →Data table
| glm51 | glm52 | gpt55 | gemini | opus48 | series | benchmark | source_ref | value_basis |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 31 | 40.5 | 41.4 | 45 | 49.8 | reasoning | HLE | zai-glm52 | Full Benchmark Table — HLE (Opus/GPT marked full-set) |
| 52.3 | 54.7 | 52.2 | 51.4 | 57.9 | reasoning | HLE w/ Tools | zai-glm52 | Full Benchmark Table — HLE with tools |
| 4.6 | 20.9 | 27.1 | 17.7 | 20.9 | reasoning | CritPt | zai-glm52 | Full Benchmark Table — CritPt |
| 95.3 | 99.2 | 98.3 | 98.2 | 95.7 | reasoning | AIME 2026 | zai-glm52 | Full Benchmark Table — AIME 2026 |
| 82.6 | 92.5 | 96.7 | 87.3 | 96.7 | reasoning | HMMT Feb 2026 | zai-glm52 | Full Benchmark Table — HMMT Feb 2026 |
2 more rows + CSV download
The full 7-row dataset, one-click CSV export, and the AI-ready context file are free with an account. Prefer to verify it yourself? The full methodology and sources are published below.
Methodology & sources
Last updated: Jul 17, 2026Methodology
Source-backed values for all six charts come from the Z.ai GLM-5.2 launch post (2026-06-16): long-horizon coding (FrontierSWE, PostTrainBench, SWE-Marathon), standard coding (Terminal-Bench 2.1, SWE-bench Pro, NL2Repo, DeepSWE, ProgramBench), reasoning (HLE, CritPt, AIME, HMMT, GPQA-Diamond, IMOAnswerBench), agentic (MCP-Atlas, Tool-Decathlon), the GLM-5.2 vs GLM-5.1 generational leap, and the MTP acceptance-length ablation. Every numeric point carries a sources[].ref and a value_basis naming the table row. Scores are reproduced verbatim from the Full Benchmark Table; cells the vendor published as "-" (not reported) are omitted, never estimated. CAVEAT: these are the model developer’s self-reported figures under their stated harnesses and prompts (see the post’s footnotes); some competitor HLE/CritPt cells are full-set scores. They are comparison-as-published, not an independent eval. Architecture context (not charted): 1M-token context (up from 200K), IndexShare cuts per-token indexer FLOPs ~2.9× at 1M, MIT-licensed open weights. Re-verified 2026-06-22.
Comparisons are informative, not definitive. See each source for definitions and limits.