Verdict
Gemini 3.5 Flash leads 13–6 across 19 shared benchmarks.
Gemini 3.5 Flash 13 · GLM-5.2 6 · higher isn't always better — check the caveats below.
Reported scores — protocols may differ. How we compare
Unknown: Gemini 3.5 Flash leads 4–2 across 6 shared unknown benchmarks (largest gap: Mystery Game Puzzles, 25.09 vs 10.77 — protocols undisclosed).
Reasoning: Gemini 3.5 Flash leads 4–0 across 4 shared reasoning benchmarks (largest gap: SimpleQA Verified, 66.2 vs 34.2 — protocols undisclosed).
Math: Evenly split 1–1 across 2 shared math benchmarks (largest gap: OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025, 95.55 vs 86.38 — single evaluator).
Vendor claims — compare against the measured scores above. A claim is what a developer says about its own model, not an independent measurement.
No vendor claims on file for Gemini 3.5 Flash.
Coding
“Advanced Coding with Flexible Effort: Stronger coding capabilities with multiple thinking effort levels to balance performance and latency”
Context Handling
“We propose IndexShare, which reuses the same indexer across every four sparse attention layers, reducing per-token FLOPs by 2.9x at a 1M context length.”
General
“Pure Open: An MIT open-source license - no regional limits, technical access without borders”
Gemini 3.5 Flash leads 13–6 across 19 shared benchmarks. Gemini 3.5 Flash leads 13 benchmarks and GLM-5.2 leads 6. Higher isn't always better — see the integrity caveats on each benchmark.
Gemini 3.5 Flash and GLM-5.2 have 19 benchmarks in common in our data — those are the only rows where a direct, apples-to-apples comparison is drawn.
Gemini 3.5 Flash leads reasoning 4–0. Gemini 3.5 Flash leads unknown 4–2.