Pairwise benchmark snapshot · Aug 16, 2026

GLM-5.2 vs Grok 4 benchmark

Name: GLM-5.2 vs Grok 4 AI benchmark comparison
Creator: CompareLLM
License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

This page compares GLM-5.2 (Zhipu) and Grok 4 (xAI) using the latest snapshots we have as of Aug 16, 2026. On preference Elo, GLM-5.2 is ahead by 4 points (1,492 vs 1,488; seed-bootstrap (Aug 1, 2026)). On SWE-bench coding, GLM-5.2 resolves 69.3% versus 58.6% (seed-bootstrap (Aug 1, 2026)). Grok 4 streams faster (98 tok/s) while GLM-5.2 is the cheaper output token ($0.97/1M). GLM-5.2 has the larger context window (1M tokens). Every cell below is a dated snapshot from a named public source — we do not invent missing scores, and we do not run SWE-bench ourselves.

Share Analysis:

WhatsApp Telegram X / Post LinkedIn Reddit

Zhipu

GLM-5.2

Zhipu flagship. Strong Chinese/English coding and agents.

Elo 1,492$0.9680000000000001/1M out

xAI

Grok 4

Previous xAI flagship.

Elo 1,488$15/1M out

Swap or Add Any Model to this Matchup

Instant pairwise benchmark recalculation across 400+ LLMs

Model A

Model B

Quick vs:vs Claude Opus 4.5 vs Claude Opus 4.6 vs Claude Sonnet 4.5 vs Claude 3.7 Sonnet

Interactive Comparison Diagram

Matchup Breakdown

Tug-of-War Matchup Matrix

Category wins across intelligence, speed, and pricing efficiency.

GLM-5.2 (8)vsGrok 4 (2)

GLM-5.2: 8W (80%)Overall: GLM-5.2Grok 4: 2W (20%)

← GLM-5.2Grok 4 →

GLM-5.2 (5/5)

Intelligence & Reasoning

Preference Elo, Coding proficiency, SWE-bench & LiveBench accuracy

Preference Elo

1,492vs1,488

Coding Elo

1,504vs—

SWE-bench

69.3%vs58.6%

LiveBench

65.2%vs64.1%

GPQA Diamond

79.5%vs79%

GLM-5.2: 5WGrok 4: 0W

Grok 4 (2/2)

Speed & Latency

Generation throughput and time to first token responsiveness

Output speed

84 tok/svs98 tok/s

Time to first token

270 msvs230 ms

GLM-5.2: 0WGrok 4: 2W

GLM-5.2 (3/3)

Pricing & Capacity

Cost per million tokens and max context window length

Output price

$0.97/1Mvs$15/1M

Input price

$0.31/1Mvs$3/1M

Context window

1Mvs256k

GLM-5.2: 3WGrok 4: 0W

Capability Matchup Radar

Multi-Dimensional Capability Radar

Each spoke is a skill. Farther from the center is better (0–100th percentile). Tap any dot to inspect details.

Tap any node to inspect

Percentile 0–100

Dimensional AdvantageGLM-5.2 5/6

Preference Elo

GLM-5.2

4 pts advantage

Throughput Speed

Grok 4

14 tok/s faster

Price Efficiency

GLM-5.2

$14.03/1M cheaper

Full Benchmark Score Matrix

—

Elo

High is better

1,492

EloHigh is better

1,488

Code Elo

High is better

1,504

Code EloHigh is better

—

LiveBench

High is better

+2%65.2%

LiveBenchHigh is better

64.1%

SWE-bench

High is better

+18%69.3%

SWE-benchHigh is better

58.6%

GPQA

High is better

+1%79.5%

GPQAHigh is better

79%

TTFT

Low is better

270 ms

TTFTLow is better

230 ms+17%

Speed

High is better

84 tok/s

SpeedHigh is better

98 tok/s+17%

In $

Low is better

+874%$0.31/1M

In $Low is better

$3/1M

Out $

Low is better

+1450%$0.97/1M

Out $Low is better

$15/1M

Context

High is better

+310%1M

ContextHigh is better

256k

Interactive Simulator

Workload Cost & Savings Calculator

Simulate monthly production API costs based on published $/1M tokens.

Save up to 92% with GLM-5.2

Monthly Volume50M tokens/mo

Quick Presets:

Token Ratio (In vs Out)70% In / 30% Out

RAG / Search (10% out)Coding / Chat (50% out)

GLM-5.2$25.30 / mo

In: $10.78Out: $14.52

Grok 4$330.00 / mo

In: $105.00Out: $225.00

Estimated Cost Delta

GLM-5.2 is estimated to save $304.70/month ($3,656/year).

Based on 50M tokens (30% gen)

Key Selection Recommendations

1
GLM-5.2:Pick GLM-5.2 when repo-level coding accuracy is the constraint.
2
Grok 4:Pick Grok 4 when time-to-first-token matters more than peak Elo.
3
GLM-5.2:Pick GLM-5.2 for million-token RAG or long-document jobs.

Recommended Workload Routing

Repo / coding agentsGLM-5.2

Higher SWE-bench (69.3%).

High-volume chatGLM-5.2

Lower output list price ($0.97/1M).

Voice / low-latency UIGrok 4

Lower TTFT (230 ms).

Long-document RAGGLM-5.2

Larger window (1M).

Screenshots / visionGLM-5.2

Both accept images. Defaulting to the higher-Elo side (GLM-5.2).

Target Workload	Recommended Pick	Evaluation Rationale
Repo / coding agents	GLM-5.2	Higher SWE-bench (69.3%).
High-volume chat	GLM-5.2	Lower output list price ($0.97/1M).
Voice / low-latency UI	Grok 4	Lower TTFT (230 ms).
Long-document RAG	GLM-5.2	Larger window (1M).
Screenshots / vision	GLM-5.2	Both accept images. Defaulting to the higher-Elo side (GLM-5.2).

Related Editorial Dispatches & Benchmark Notes

View all news

newsAug 16, 2026

GLM-5.2 vs GLM 5V Turbo Price and SWE-bench 2026

GLM-5.2 undercuts GLM 5V Turbo by 74.2% on input at $0.31/1M, with 1,492 Elo and 69.3% SWE-bench in dated 2026 snapshots.

launchJun 18, 2026

GLM-5.2 remains the prior Zhipu flagship for upgrade pairs

Strong Chinese/English coding. 5.3 is the new row; 5.2 stays so the delta is visible.

launchJul 10, 2025

Grok 4 remains the previous xAI flagship on this catalog

2025-07 row. 4.6 is the buy. We keep 4 so upgrade pairs and old inbound links resolve.

Community Sentiment

Cast Your Matchup Vote

0 total votes

Community Discussions (0)

No comments posted on this matchup yet. Be the first to share an evaluation note!

Share card

The real PNG is generated at /compare/glm-5-2-vs-grok-4/opengraph-image for crawlers.

PNG

CompareLLM Matrix

Verified head-to-head card

LIVE

Zhipu

GLM-5.2

Elo 1,492

LiveBench65.2%

SWE-bench69.3%

Speed84 tok/s

Output cost$0.97/1M

xAI

Grok 4

Elo 1,488

LiveBench64.1%

SWE-bench58.6%

Speed98 tok/s

Output cost$15/1M

Frequently Asked Questions

Which is better overall, GLM-5.2 or Grok 4?: GLM-5.2 has the higher preference Elo in our latest snapshot (1,492). “Better” still depends on coding, price, and latency — see the table.
Which is better at coding, GLM-5.2 or Grok 4?: GLM-5.2 leads SWE-bench at 69.3% vs 58.6%. SWE-bench is one harness, not your repo.
Which is cheaper to run in production?: GLM-5.2 output tokens are $0.97/1M versus $15/1M. Input prices and retry rates still move the real bill.
Which is faster, GLM-5.2 or Grok 4?: Grok 4 has the lower time-to-first-token (230 ms vs 270 ms). Tokens/sec is a separate column if you care about long completions.
Which has the larger context window?: GLM-5.2 accepts 1M tokens versus 256k.
Can I self-host either model?: GLM-5.2 is marked open-weights in our catalog. The other side is a closed API. Check the provider license before you ship weights.
Are these scores from CompareLLM’s own evals?: No. V1 aggregates public leaderboards (and optional first-party latency pings). Each cell names its source and date. Read /methodology.
What does preference Elo mean on this page?: Preference Elo is a crowd vote from LMArena / Arena. People see two hidden answers and pick the one they like more. The model that wins more often gets a higher Elo. That means people preferred it — not that it passed a school test. It is not SWE-bench, not accuracy, and not a number we invent. GLM-5.2 and Grok 4 Elo cells are dated snapshots from the named source — we do not compute Arena ourselves.

Similar Head-to-Head Comparisons

All GLM-5.2 matchups →|All Grok 4 matchups →

GLM-5.2 vs GLM-5.3 (next glm)Grok 4 vs Grok 3 (previous grok)Grok 4 vs Grok 4.6 (next grok)Grok 4.6 vs GLM-5.2 Gemini 2.0 Flash Thinking vs Grok 4 DeepSeek V4 Flash vs Grok 4

GLM-5.2 vs Grok 4 benchmark

Interactive Comparison Diagram

Matchup Breakdown

Tug-of-War Matchup Matrix

Category wins across intelligence, speed, and pricing efficiency.

GLM-5.2 (8)vsGrok 4 (2)

GLM-5.2: 8W (80%)Overall: GLM-5.2Grok 4: 2W (20%)

← GLM-5.2Grok 4 →

GLM-5.2 (5/5)

Intelligence & Reasoning

Preference Elo, Coding proficiency, SWE-bench & LiveBench accuracy

Preference Elo

1,492vs1,488

Coding Elo

1,504vs—

SWE-bench

69.3%vs58.6%

LiveBench

65.2%vs64.1%

GPQA Diamond

79.5%vs79%

GLM-5.2: 5WGrok 4: 0W

Grok 4 (2/2)

Speed & Latency

Generation throughput and time to first token responsiveness

Output speed

84 tok/svs98 tok/s

Time to first token

270 msvs230 ms

GLM-5.2: 0WGrok 4: 2W

GLM-5.2 (3/3)

Pricing & Capacity

Cost per million tokens and max context window length

Output price

$0.97/1Mvs$15/1M

Input price

$0.31/1Mvs$3/1M

Context window

1Mvs256k

GLM-5.2: 3WGrok 4: 0W

Recommended Workload Routing

Repo / coding agentsGLM-5.2

Higher SWE-bench (69.3%).

High-volume chatGLM-5.2

Lower output list price ($0.97/1M).

Voice / low-latency UIGrok 4

Lower TTFT (230 ms).

Long-document RAGGLM-5.2

Larger window (1M).

Screenshots / visionGLM-5.2

Both accept images. Defaulting to the higher-Elo side (GLM-5.2).

Target Workload	Recommended Pick	Evaluation Rationale
Repo / coding agents	GLM-5.2	Higher SWE-bench (69.3%).
High-volume chat	GLM-5.2	Lower output list price ($0.97/1M).
Voice / low-latency UI	Grok 4	Lower TTFT (230 ms).
Long-document RAG	GLM-5.2	Larger window (1M).
Screenshots / vision	GLM-5.2	Both accept images. Defaulting to the higher-Elo side (GLM-5.2).

Frequently Asked Questions

Which is better overall, GLM-5.2 or Grok 4?

GLM-5.2 has the higher preference Elo in our latest snapshot (1,492). “Better” still depends on coding, price, and latency — see the table.

Which is better at coding, GLM-5.2 or Grok 4?

GLM-5.2 leads SWE-bench at 69.3% vs 58.6%. SWE-bench is one harness, not your repo.

Which is cheaper to run in production?

GLM-5.2 output tokens are $0.97/1M versus $15/1M. Input prices and retry rates still move the real bill.

Which is faster, GLM-5.2 or Grok 4?

Grok 4 has the lower time-to-first-token (230 ms vs 270 ms). Tokens/sec is a separate column if you care about long completions.

Which has the larger context window?

GLM-5.2 accepts 1M tokens versus 256k.

Can I self-host either model?

GLM-5.2 is marked open-weights in our catalog. The other side is a closed API. Check the provider license before you ship weights.

Are these scores from CompareLLM’s own evals?

No. V1 aggregates public leaderboards (and optional first-party latency pings). Each cell names its source and date. Read /methodology.

What does preference Elo mean on this page?

Preference Elo is a crowd vote from LMArena / Arena. People see two hidden answers and pick the one they like more. The model that wins more often gets a higher Elo. That means people preferred it — not that it passed a school test. It is not SWE-bench, not accuracy, and not a number we invent. GLM-5.2 and Grok 4 Elo cells are dated snapshots from the named source — we do not compute Arena ourselves.

Swap or Add Any Model to this Matchup

Interactive Comparison Diagram

Tug-of-War Matchup Matrix

Intelligence & Reasoning

Speed & Latency

Pricing & Capacity

Multi-Dimensional Capability Radar

GLM-5.2

Grok 4

GLM-5.2

Full Benchmark Score Matrix

Workload Cost & Savings Calculator

Key Selection Recommendations

Recommended Workload Routing

Related Editorial Dispatches & Benchmark Notes

GLM-5.2 vs GLM 5V Turbo Price and SWE-bench 2026

GLM-5.2 remains the prior Zhipu flagship for upgrade pairs

Grok 4 remains the previous xAI flagship on this catalog

Cast Your Matchup Vote

Community Discussions (0)

Share card

CompareLLM Matrix

GLM-5.2

Grok 4

Frequently Asked Questions

Related news

Similar Head-to-Head Comparisons

Swap or Add Any Model to this Matchup

Interactive Comparison Diagram

Tug-of-War Matchup Matrix

Intelligence & Reasoning

Speed & Latency

Pricing & Capacity

Multi-Dimensional Capability Radar

GLM-5.2

Grok 4

GLM-5.2

Full Benchmark Score Matrix

Workload Cost & Savings Calculator

Key Selection Recommendations

Recommended Workload Routing

Related Editorial Dispatches & Benchmark Notes

GLM-5.2 vs GLM 5V Turbo Price and SWE-bench 2026

GLM-5.2 remains the prior Zhipu flagship for upgrade pairs

Grok 4 remains the previous xAI flagship on this catalog

Cast Your Matchup Vote

Community Discussions (0)

Share card

CompareLLM Matrix

GLM-5.2

Grok 4

Frequently Asked Questions

Related news

Similar Head-to-Head Comparisons