Gemini 3.5 Flash vs GLM-5
Google Gemini 3.5 Flash | Z.ai GLM-5 | |
|---|---|---|
| Overview | ||
| Company | Z.ai | |
| Release date | May 19 2026 | Feb 12 2026 |
| Access | Proprietary | Open Weight |
| Specifications | ||
Parameters | — | 744B |
| Benchmarks | ||
Nonsense detection BullshitBench v2Given a confidently-worded but nonsensical prompt, does the AI spot that it makes no sense and push back — instead of playing along and inventing an answer? The score is how often it clearly called out the nonsense. Higher is better. | 20% | — |
Agentic coding SWE-Bench ProCan the AI fix real bugs in real software? It's handed actual problems from open-source projects and has to write code that genuinely solves them. Higher is better. | 55.1% | — |
Coding SWE-Bench VerifiedReal coding tasks pulled from open-source projects — the AI has to find and fix actual bugs. A human-checked version of the original SWE-Bench. Higher is better. | — | 77.8% |
Multilingual coding SWE-Bench MultilingualLike SWE-Bench, but the coding problems span many programming languages, not just one. Tests how broadly the AI can code. Higher is better. | — | 73.3% |
Agentic terminal coding Terminal-Bench 2.1Can the AI work in a command-line terminal — running commands and finishing technical setup tasks the way a developer would? Higher is better. | 76.2% | — |
Agentic terminal coding Terminal-Bench 2.0Can the AI work in a command-line terminal — running commands and finishing technical setup tasks the way a developer would? (Version 2.0 of the test.) Higher is better. | — | 56.2% |
Multi-step tool use MCP AtlasCan the AI chain together many tools and steps to complete one bigger task, rather than doing just a single thing? Higher is better. | 83.6% | — |
General tool use ToolathlonTests how well the AI uses everyday real-world tools and apps to get things done. Higher is better. | 56.5% | — |
Web browsing BrowseCompCan the AI browse the web and track down hard-to-find answers? Higher is better. | — | 75.9% |
Multidisciplinary reasoning Humanity's Last Exam · no toolsHumanity's Last Exam — extremely hard expert questions across many subjects, written so you can't just look up the answer. “No tools” means the AI answers on its own. Higher is better. | 40.2% | — |
Multidisciplinary reasoning Humanity's Last Exam · with toolsHumanity's Last Exam — extremely hard expert questions across many subjects. “With tools” means the AI is allowed to search the web or run code while answering. Higher is better. | — | 50.4% |
Abstract reasoning ARC-AGI-2Puzzle-style tests of abstract reasoning and pattern-finding — the kind of thing people find easy but AIs often struggle with. Higher is better. | 72.1% | — |
Science GPQA DiamondGraduate-level science questions in biology, physics, and chemistry — hard enough that subject-matter PhDs score around 65%. Higher is better. | — | 86% |
Agentic computer use OSWorld-VerifiedCan the AI actually operate a computer — clicking, typing, and using real apps — to finish tasks on its own? Higher is better. | 78.4% | — |
Agentic financial analysis Finance Agent v2Tests the AI on real financial-analysis work, like digging through reports and making sound decisions. Higher is better. | 57.9% | — |
Knowledge work GDPval-AAMeasures how well the AI does economically valuable knowledge work, judged against human experts. Shown as a rating (like a chess Elo) — higher is better. | 1656 | — |
Chart reasoning CharXiv ReasoningCan the AI read and reason about complex charts and figures, not just text? Higher is better. | 84.2% | — |
Multimodal reasoning MMMU-ProA tougher version of MMMU — college-level questions that mix images, diagrams, and text together. Higher is better. | 83.6% | — |
Spatial reasoning Blueprint-Bench 2Can the AI reason about space and layout — for example, understanding a floor plan or blueprint? Higher is better. | 33.6% | — |
Long context MRCR v2 (8-needle) · 128k averageTests whether the AI can find specific details buried inside a very long document (around 128k tokens — roughly a long book). Higher is better. | 77.3% | — |
Long context MRCR v2 (8-needle) · 1M pointwiseTests whether the AI can find specific details buried inside an enormous document (around 1 million tokens — many books). Higher is better. | 26.6% | — |
| Timeline | ||
| Release gap | GLM-5 shipped 96 days before Gemini 3.5 Flash | |
Which is better: Gemini 3.5 Flash or GLM-5?
Gemini 3.5 Flash and GLM-5 don't publish scores on any of the same benchmarks, so there's no direct head-to-head comparison. GLM-5 shipped 96 days before Gemini 3.5 Flash, so benchmark comparisons should account for the intervening progress.
Gemini 3.5 Flash is proprietary, while GLM-5 is open weight.
Direct benchmark comparisons are unavailable — Gemini 3.5 Flash and GLM-5 don't publish scores on any of the same benchmarks.
Frequently asked questions
Gemini 3.5 Flash was released by Google on May 19 2026.
GLM-5 was released by Z.ai on Feb 12 2026.
Gemini 3.5 Flash is a proprietary model released by Google. GLM-5 is an open weight model released by Z.ai.
Other comparisons
Gemini 3.5 Flash vs Claude Fable 5GLM-5 vs Claude Fable 5Gemini 3.5 Flash vs GPT-5.6 SolGLM-5 vs GPT-5.6 SolGemini 3.5 Flash vs Muse SparkGLM-5 vs Muse SparkGemini 3.5 Flash vs Grok 4.3 BetaGLM-5 vs Grok 4.3 BetaGemini 3.5 Flash vs DeepSeek-V4-ProGLM-5 vs DeepSeek-V4-ProGemini 3.5 Flash vs Mistral Medium 3.5GLM-5 vs Mistral Medium 3.5