CompareLLM
CompareLLM.ai
Live
LeaderboardModelsCompareStacksBest ofGuidesNewsMethod
…
CompareLLM
CompareLLM.ai
Precision Benchmarks

Programmatic, dated AI model benchmarks, head-to-head comparisons, and Stack Engine presets.

Daily ingest · 06:00 UTC

Analytics & Benchmarks

  • AI Model Leaderboard
  • Head-to-Head Compare Hub
  • Models Directory
  • Stack Engine Presets
  • Frontier Models
  • Open Weights Catalog

Guides & Intent Lists

  • Best LLM Lists (2026)
  • Best Coding LLM
  • Best Cheap LLM
  • Fastest Low-Latency LLM
  • Claude vs GPT Benchmark
  • What is Elo?
  • Methodology Guides
  • News & Dispatches

Transparency & API

  • Evaluation Methodology
  • Benchmark Changelog
  • Public JSON API
  • llms.txt Specification
  • Privacy Policy
  • Sign In / Account

© 2026 CompareLLM. Public benchmark data aggregated from Arena Elo, LiveBench, SWE-bench & OpenRouter.

Every score has a dated snapshot.

  1. Home
  2. Comparisons
  3. GLM-5.2 vs Llama 4 Maverick

Pairwise benchmark snapshot · Aug 16, 2026

GLM-5.2 vs Llama 4 Maverick benchmark

This page compares GLM-5.2 (Zhipu) and Llama 4 Maverick (Meta) using the latest snapshots we have as of Aug 16, 2026. On preference Elo, GLM-5.2 is ahead by 24 points (1,492 vs 1,468; seed-bootstrap (Aug 1, 2026)). On SWE-bench coding, GLM-5.2 resolves 69.3% versus 57.1% (seed-bootstrap (Aug 1, 2026)). Llama 4 Maverick streams faster (130 tok/s) while Llama 4 Maverick is the cheaper output token ($0.8/1M). 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.

Quick answer

GLM-5.2 vs Llama 4 Maverick is a dated snapshot, not a lab score. GLM-5.2 leads preference Elo (1,492 vs 1,468). GLM-5.2 leads SWE-bench coding. Llama 4 Maverick is the cheaper output token. Elo is crowd preference, not an exam. Pick the column that matches the job.
Share Analysis:
WhatsAppTelegramX / PostLinkedInReddit

Zhipu

GLM-5.2

Zhipu flagship. Strong Chinese/English coding and agents.

Elo 1,492$0.9680000000000001/1M out

Meta

Llama 4 Maverick

Meta natively multimodal open-weight flagship.

Elo 1,468$0.7999999999999999/1M 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 4.5vs Claude Opus 4.6vs Claude Sonnet 4.5vs 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 (5)vsLlama 4 Maverick (4)
GLM-5.2: 5W (56%)Overall: GLM-5.2Llama 4 Maverick: 4W (44%)
← GLM-5.21 tiesLlama 4 Maverick →
GLM-5.2 (5/5)

Intelligence & Reasoning

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

Preference Elo
1,492vs1,468
Coding Elo
1,504vs1,452
SWE-bench
69.3%vs57.1%
LiveBench
65.2%vs62.8%
GPQA Diamond
79.5%vs74.6%
GLM-5.2: 5WLlama 4 Maverick: 0W
Llama 4 Maverick (2/2)

Speed & Latency

Generation throughput and time to first token responsiveness

Output speed
84 tok/svs130 tok/s
Time to first token
270 msvs170 ms
GLM-5.2: 0WLlama 4 Maverick: 2W
Llama 4 Maverick (2/3)

Pricing & Capacity

Cost per million tokens and max context window length

Output price
$0.97/1Mvs$0.8/1M
Input price
$0.31/1Mvs$0.2/1M
Context window
1Mvs1M
GLM-5.2: 0WLlama 4 Maverick: 2W
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 3/6
Preference Elo

GLM-5.2

24 pts advantage

Throughput Speed

Llama 4 Maverick

46 tok/s faster

Price Efficiency

Llama 4 Maverick

$0.17/1M cheaper

Full Benchmark Score Matrix

—
Elo
High is better
+2%1,492
EloHigh is better
1,468
Code Elo
High is better
+4%1,504
Code EloHigh is better
1,452
LiveBench
High is better
+4%65.2%
LiveBenchHigh is better
62.8%
SWE-bench
High is better
+21%69.3%
SWE-benchHigh is better
57.1%
GPQA
High is better
+7%79.5%
GPQAHigh is better
74.6%
TTFT
Low is better
270 ms
TTFTLow is better
170 ms+59%
Speed
High is better
84 tok/s
SpeedHigh is better
130 tok/s+55%
In $
Low is better
$0.31/1M
In $Low is better
$0.2/1M+54%
Out $
Low is better
$0.97/1M
Out $Low is better
$0.8/1M+21%
Context
High is better
1M
ContextHigh is better
1M
Interactive Simulator

Workload Cost & Savings Calculator

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

Save up to 25% with Llama 4 Maverick
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
Llama 4 Maverick$19.00 / mo
In: $7.00Out: $12.00
Estimated Cost Delta

Llama 4 Maverick is estimated to save $6.30/month ($76/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
    Llama 4 Maverick:Pick Llama 4 Maverick when you are optimizing output cost.
  • 3
    Llama 4 Maverick:Pick Llama 4 Maverick when time-to-first-token matters more than peak Elo.

Recommended Workload Routing

Repo / coding agentsGLM-5.2

Higher SWE-bench (69.3%).

High-volume chatLlama 4 Maverick

Lower output list price ($0.8/1M).

Voice / low-latency UILlama 4 Maverick

Lower TTFT (170 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 WorkloadRecommended PickEvaluation Rationale
Repo / coding agentsGLM-5.2Higher SWE-bench (69.3%).
High-volume chatLlama 4 MaverickLower output list price ($0.8/1M).
Voice / low-latency UILlama 4 MaverickLower TTFT (170 ms).
Long-document RAGGLM-5.2Larger window (1M).
Screenshots / visionGLM-5.2Both 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.

compareApr 9, 2026

Llama vs Claude: open-weight Meta versus the Anthropic crown

Hub remaps to top Meta vs top Anthropic Elo. Usually Maverick vs Opus 5.

launchApr 8, 2026

Llama 4 Maverick: Meta’s natively multimodal open-weight flagship

Apr 2026. The Llama vs Claude hub uses the top Meta Elo row — usually Maverick.

Community Sentiment

Cast Your Matchup Vote

0 total votes

Community Discussions (0)

Sign in to cast your verified vote, bookmark models, and participate in benchmark discussions.Sign In to Post

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-llama-4-maverick/opengraph-image for crawlers.

PNG

CompareLLM Matrix

Verified head-to-head card

LIVE
VS
Zhipu

GLM-5.2

Elo 1,492
LiveBench65.2%
SWE-bench69.3%
Speed84 tok/s
Output cost$0.97/1M
Meta

Llama 4 Maverick

Elo 1,468
LiveBench62.8%
SWE-bench57.1%
Speed130 tok/s
Output cost$0.8/1M

Frequently Asked Questions

Which is better overall, GLM-5.2 or Llama 4 Maverick?
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 Llama 4 Maverick?
GLM-5.2 leads SWE-bench at 69.3% vs 57.1%. SWE-bench is one harness, not your repo.
Which is cheaper to run in production?
Llama 4 Maverick output tokens are $0.8/1M versus $0.97/1M. Input prices and retry rates still move the real bill.
Which is faster, GLM-5.2 or Llama 4 Maverick?
Llama 4 Maverick has the lower time-to-first-token (170 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 1M.
Can I self-host either model?
Both GLM-5.2 and Llama 4 Maverick are marked open-weights. Hosting cost is not in this table.
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 Llama 4 Maverick Elo cells are dated snapshots from the named source — we do not compute Arena ourselves.

Related news

  • news · Aug 16, 2026

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

  • launch · Jun 18, 2026

    GLM-5.2 remains the prior Zhipu flagship for upgrade pairs

  • compare · Apr 9, 2026

    Llama vs Claude: open-weight Meta versus the Anthropic crown

  • launch · Apr 8, 2026

    Llama 4 Maverick: Meta’s natively multimodal open-weight flagship

Similar Head-to-Head Comparisons

All GLM-5.2 matchups →|All Llama 4 Maverick matchups →
GLM-5.2 vs GLM-5.3 (next glm)Llama 4 Maverick vs Llama 3.3 70B (previous llama)Llama 4 Maverick vs Llama 4 Scout (next llama)DeepSeek V4 Flash vs GLM-5.2Qwen QwQ 32B vs GLM-5.2MiniMax M2.5 vs Llama 4 Maverick