Qwen3.8-MaxvsGLM-5.2
Qwen3.8-Max | GLM-5.2 | |
|---|---|---|
| Specifications | ||
Parameters | 2.4T | 744B |
Context window | 1M | 1M |
| 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. | — | 31% |
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. | 67.7%Best | 62.1% |
Agentic coding CursorBench v3.2Cursor's own test of harder, real-world coding tasks inside a code editor, on the refreshed v3.2 task set. Scores aren't comparable with v3.1. Higher is better. | — | 55% |
Agentic coding CursorBench v3.1Cursor's own test of harder, real-world coding tasks inside a code editor. Higher is better. | — | 54.6% |
Agentic coding DeepSWE 1.1Artificial Analysis' independent test of deep, agentic software-engineering work — the AI has to plan and carry out substantial coding tasks end to end. (Version 1.1 of the test.) Higher is better. | — | 44% |
Research reproduction PaperBenchreproducing the results of an ML research paper end to end | 93% | — |
Next.js coding Next.js EvalsVercel's open eval of how well AI coding agents build and migrate real Next.js apps — measured as the share of tasks the agent completes successfully. Higher is better. | — | 88% |
Agentic computer work Frontier-Bench v0.1A hard, ever-evolving set of real computer tasks — coding, system administration, data work, and more — that an AI agent has to complete on its own. Run by the Harbor / Laude Institute team as the successor to Terminal-Bench (v0.1 is the first release of the task set). The score is the share of tasks solved. Higher is better. | — | 5.1% |
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. | 86.6%Best | 81% |
Professional tool use JobBenchTests the AI on professional workplace tasks that require using real work tools — the kind of multi-step jobs an office worker handles. Higher is better. | 53.4% | — |
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. | — | 40.5% |
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. | — | 54.7% |
Science GPQA DiamondGraduate-level science questions in biology, physics, and chemistry — hard enough that subject-matter PhDs score around 65%. Higher is better. | — | 91.2% |
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. | 86.1% | — |
Knowledge work GDPval-AA v2economically valuable knowledge work (v2, re-based Elo) | — | 1514 |
Chart reasoning CharXiv ReasoningCan the AI read and reason about complex charts and figures, not just text? Higher is better. | 88.4% | — |
Visual reasoning BabyVisionTests core visual reasoning — seeing and understanding images the way even young children can, which AIs often find surprisingly hard. Higher is better. | 82% | — |
Community preference (code) Arena Elo (Code)Like the text arena, but people vote on which AI writes better code. The votes become a chess-style Elo rating on arena.ai. Higher is better. | — | 1587 |
| Overview | ||
| Company | Qwen | Z.ai |
| Release date | Aug 3 2026 | Jun 16 2026 |
| Access | Proprietary | Open Weight |
Which is better: Qwen3.8-Max or GLM-5.2?
Qwen3.8-Max leads GLM-5.2 on 2 of the 2 benchmarks they both report (SWE-Bench Pro, Terminal-Bench 2.1). GLM-5.2 shipped 48 days before Qwen3.8-Max, so benchmark comparisons should account for the intervening progress.
Qwen3.8-Max has 2.4T parameters, while GLM-5.2 has 744B. Context windows are 1M (Qwen3.8-Max) vs 1M (GLM-5.2). Qwen3.8-Max is proprietary, while GLM-5.2 is open weight.
On SWE-Bench Pro, Qwen3.8-Max leads at 67.7% vs GLM-5.2 at 62.1%. On Terminal-Bench 2.1, Qwen3.8-Max leads at 86.6% vs GLM-5.2 at 81%.
Frequently asked questions
Qwen3.8-Max was released by Qwen on Aug 3 2026.
GLM-5.2 was released by Z.ai on Jun 16 2026.
Qwen3.8-Max leads on SWE-Bench Pro — Qwen3.8-Max 67.7% vs GLM-5.2 62.1%.
Qwen3.8-Max has a 1M context window; GLM-5.2 has 1M.
Qwen3.8-Max is a proprietary model released by Qwen. GLM-5.2 is an open weight model released by Z.ai.
Other comparisons
Qwen3.8-MaxvsClaude Opus 5GLM-5.2vsClaude Opus 5Qwen3.8-MaxvsGPT-5.6 SolGLM-5.2vsGPT-5.6 SolQwen3.8-MaxvsGemini 3.6 FlashGLM-5.2vsGemini 3.6 FlashQwen3.8-MaxvsMuse Spark 1.1GLM-5.2vsMuse Spark 1.1Qwen3.8-MaxvsGrok 4.5GLM-5.2vsGrok 4.5Qwen3.8-MaxvsDeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731GLM-5.2vsDeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731