Gemini 3.1 Pro vs GLM 5.2
Benchmark Performance
Available Benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.1 Pro | GLM-5.2 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text Arenatext-2026-09-01-011508720696 · arena_rating · leader | 1,480.10100% of row best · rating · gemini-3.1-pro-preview; 95% CI [1476.89767236, 1483.30025658]; votes 102763; rank 11 | 1,466.8099% of row best · rating · glm-5.2-max; 95% CI [1462.10739564, 1471.49788772]; votes 33758; rank 26 |
| LiveBench2026-06-25 · overall · leader | 81.66100% of row best · percent · gemini-3.1-pro-preview-high · 13,380 output tokens / case | 76.9694% of row best · percent · glm-5.2 · 23,463 output tokens / case |
| Overall ResultCounted from the protocol-matched rows above | 2 benchmark winsOverall lead | 0 benchmark wins |
Third-party benchmark Only like-for-like primary-publisher results are shown; raw scores, relative scores, configuration, and token spend remain visible.
Technical Differences
Side-by-Side Facts
| Field | Gemini 3.1 Pro | GLM-5.2 |
|---|---|---|
| Developer | Google DeepMind | Z.ai |
| Family | Gemini 3 | Glm 5 2 |
| Model | Gemini 3.1 Pro | GLM-5.2 |
| Version | Gemini 3.1 Pro | GLM-5.2 |
| Lifecycle | preview | active |
| Released | Unknown | Unknown |
| Knowledge cutoff | Unknown | Unknown |
| Input modalities | Text, Image, Video, Audio, Document | Text |
| Output modalities | Text | Text |
| Context window | 1,049K | 1,049K |
| Total parameters | Unknown | 753.3B |
| Active parameters | Unknown | Unknown |
| License | Unknown | mit |
| Open weights | No | Yes |
| API available | Yes | Yes |
| Self-hostable | No | Yes |
| Provider access | Google AI (Standard), Google Gemini (Standard) | Deepinfra (Standard), Fireworks Ai (Standard), Hugging Face (Standard), Openrouter (Standard), Together Ai (Standard) |
| Capabilities | chat, generation, reasoning, tools | chat, generation, reasoning, tools |
13 comparable fields · 9 material differences · Pair passes the primary-source comparison gate
Gemini 3.1 Pro Capabilities
GLM 5.2 Capabilities
Internal Comparison Graph
Related Comparisons
| A | Pair | B | Context |
|---|---|---|---|
Gemini 2.5 ProGoogle DeepMind | vs | Gemini 3.1 ProGoogle DeepMind | family variantstext |
Gemini 3.1 ProGoogle DeepMind | vs |  GPT-5.6 SolOpenAI | cross-developer peerstext |
Claude Fable 5.1Anthropic | vs | Gemini 3.1 ProGoogle DeepMind | cross-developer peerstext |
 DeepSeek-V4-ProDeepSeek | vs | Gemini 3.1 ProGoogle DeepMind | cross-developer peerstext |
Gemini 3.1 ProGoogle DeepMind | vs | Grok 4.6xAI | cross-developer peerstext |
Gemini 3.1 ProGoogle DeepMind | vs |  Qwen3.8-MaxQwen | cross-developer peerstext |
Gemini 3.1 ProGoogle DeepMind | vs |  Kimi-K3Moonshot AI | cross-developer peerstext |
 MiniMax-M3MiniMax | vs | Gemini 3.1 ProGoogle DeepMind | cross-developer peerstext |
Gemini 3.1 ProGoogle DeepMind | vs | GLM-5.3Z.ai | cross-developer peerstext |
Gemini 3.1 ProGoogle DeepMind | vs |  Hy4 previewTencent | cross-developer peerstext |
Seed 2.1 ProByteDance Seed | vs | Gemini 3.1 ProGoogle DeepMind | cross-developer peerstext |
Gemini 3.1 ProGoogle DeepMind | vs |  Mistral Large 3Mistral AI | cross-developer peerstext |
Primary Evidence
Sources and Freshness
Questions
Gemini 3.1 Pro vs GLM 5.2 FAQs
Is Gemini 3.1 Pro or GLM 5.2 better for coding?+
This comparison does not currently contain a protocol-matched coding benchmark for both Gemini 3.1 Pro and GLM 5.2, so Model Markets cannot name a coding leader from pricing, context size, or capability labels alone.
Which is cheaper, Gemini 3.1 Pro or GLM 5.2?+
Gemini 3.1 Pro is $2.00 and GLM 5.2 is $0.75 per million tokens, so GLM 5.2 is cheaper on this metric. Gemini 3.1 Pro is $12.00 and GLM 5.2 is $2.40 per million tokens, so GLM 5.2 is cheaper on this metric.
Which has a larger context window, Gemini 3.1 Pro or GLM 5.2?+
Neither model has a larger sourced context window in this comparison. Gemini 3.1 Pro is 1,049K and GLM 5.2 is 1,049K.
Which performs better in benchmarks, Gemini 3.1 Pro or GLM 5.2?+
Gemini 3.1 Pro leads the current overall benchmark count. The result uses 2 protocol-matched benchmarks from 2 publishers; it is not a universal quality score.
Can Gemini 3.1 Pro or GLM 5.2 be self-hosted?+
GLM 5.2 is the only model in this pair currently marked as self-hostable. Gemini 3.1 Pro is not marked open weight; GLM 5.2 is open weight.
Can Gemini 3.1 Pro and GLM 5.2 understand images?+
Gemini 3.1 Pro is documented with image input; GLM 5.2 is not documented with image input. This reflects supported input modalities, not vision quality.
Which can generate longer answers, Gemini 3.1 Pro or GLM 5.2?+
Neither has a larger sourced maximum output. Gemini 3.1 Pro is 66K and GLM 5.2 is —.
Do Gemini 3.1 Pro and GLM 5.2 support reasoning and tool use?+
Gemini 3.1 Pro: reasoning, tool calling, and image input. GLM 5.2: reasoning and tool calling. Feature support does not establish relative quality.
Which is available from more inference providers, Gemini 3.1 Pro or GLM 5.2?+
Gemini 3.1 Pro has 2 sourced provider routes; GLM 5.2 has 5, so GLM 5.2 has broader tracked availability.
Which offers better value, Gemini 3.1 Pro or GLM 5.2?+
There is no universal value winner. Compare the input and output prices above with the matched benchmark result for your workload: cheaper tokens can be offset by different quality, token usage, latency, or provider availability.