Composer 2.5vsGLM-5.2
Composer 2.5 | GLM-5.2 | |
|---|---|---|
| Specifications | ||
Parameters | — | 744B |
Context window | — | 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. | 54% | 62.1%Best |
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. | 79.8% | — |
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. | 56.1%Best | 55% |
Agentic coding CursorBench v3.1Cursor's own test of harder, real-world coding tasks inside a code editor. Higher is better. | 63.2%Best | 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% |
Agentic coding DeepSWE 1.0Artificial Analysis' independent test of deep, agentic software-engineering work — the AI has to plan and carry out substantial coding tasks end to end. Higher is better. | 18% | — |
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. | 92%Best | 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. | 73% | 81%Best |
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. | 69.3% | — |
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% |
Knowledge work GDPval-AA v2economically valuable knowledge work (v2, re-based Elo) | — | 1514 |
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 | SpaceXAI | Z.ai |
| Release date | May 18 2026 | Jun 16 2026 |
| Access | Proprietary | Open Weight |
Which is better: Composer 2.5 or GLM-5.2?
Composer 2.5 leads GLM-5.2 on 3 of the 5 benchmarks they both report. Composer 2.5 shipped 29 days before GLM-5.2, so benchmark comparisons should account for the intervening progress.
Composer 2.5 is proprietary, while GLM-5.2 is open weight.
On SWE-Bench Pro, GLM-5.2 leads at 62.1% vs Composer 2.5 at 54%. On CursorBench v3.2, Composer 2.5 leads at 56.1% vs GLM-5.2 at 55%. On CursorBench v3.1, Composer 2.5 leads at 63.2% vs GLM-5.2 at 54.6%. On Next.js Evals, Composer 2.5 leads at 92% vs GLM-5.2 at 88%. On Terminal-Bench 2.1, GLM-5.2 leads at 81% vs Composer 2.5 at 73%.
Frequently asked questions
Composer 2.5 was released by SpaceXAI on May 18 2026.
GLM-5.2 was released by Z.ai on Jun 16 2026.
GLM-5.2 leads on SWE-Bench Pro — Composer 2.5 54% vs GLM-5.2 62.1%.
Composer 2.5 is a proprietary model released by SpaceXAI. GLM-5.2 is an open weight model released by Z.ai.
Other comparisons
Composer 2.5vsClaude Opus 5GLM-5.2vsClaude Opus 5Composer 2.5vsGPT-5.6-CyberGLM-5.2vsGPT-5.6-CyberComposer 2.5vsGemini 3.7 FlashGLM-5.2vsGemini 3.7 FlashComposer 2.5vsMuse GlimmerGLM-5.2vsMuse GlimmerComposer 2.5vsDeepSeek-V4-Pro-0813GLM-5.2vsDeepSeek-V4-Pro-0813Composer 2.5vsMistral Medium 3.5GLM-5.2vsMistral Medium 3.5