GLM 5.2 versus Quen 3.7 versus Claude Opus 4.8. I put all three head-to-head, same five tasks, one shot each, no second chances, and the results
flipped everything I thought I knew about picking an AI. So, here's the part that gets me. The model that wins on paper, the best one with the best
scores, came in last when I actually used it. And the one that looked the best, that actually shipped with
no official scores at all. So, if you've been sitting there trying to figure out which AI to actually use for your business, and you keep seeing these
big benchmark charts that say, you know, something different every single time, well, we're going to look at what performs the best out of Quen, GLM
5.2, and Claude Opus 4.8. Now, these are three of the top AI models right now. GLM 5.2 is from a
Chinese company called Zhipu Z AI. Oh, there's a coding plan. Then you got Quen 3.7 Max from Alibaba, and Claude Opus 4.8 from Anthropic. Now, I ran
all three through the same jobs, and we'll start this off. And so, the first job that we gave it here was a sort of voxel runner game. So, we've got
GLM 5.2 over here, Quen 3.7, and Opus 4.8. So, this is the one from Quen 3.2. Sorry, from GLM 5.2. As
you can see here, it's a lot of fun. Pretty interesting game, pretty cool, um and a lot of fun to play. If you look at this one from Quen 3.7, this is
Quen 3.7 Max, by the way, and you can see here that it's quite boring to play with, right? It's I mean, look at that. It's kind of buggy, but it does
the job. It does the job. Then we have Claude Opus 4.8, and look how basic that is. That is not so
much fun at all. So, on the first coding test here, we can see clearly that GLM 5.2 is winning, and Quen 3.7 comes in second. Next up, we have the
inner system orbit map. And actually, if you look at all three of these, undeniably, Opus 4.8 wins this, right? It's it's doing the best job here. And
it's done something amazing, as you can see. And we can change the speed, we can change the rotations,
etc. This one is okay. This one is pretty bad. Now, you can like zoom in and it looks better and that sort of thing. But on the outside, um doesn't
look that great. I mean, it's kind of full cool to play with, but I think I all of these, you know, Claude Opus 4.8 absolutely nailed it. Now, we've
got the liquid in a ball test. So, we have Quen 3.7 over here, GLM 5.2, and Opus 4.8. Now, if you look
at these, I mean, this is kind of a boring test, but you can see here the animation from GLM 5.2 is really nice. Like, we can change this, we can
change the theme. It's it's pretty cool to play with. If we have a look at, for example, the one from Quen 3.7 Max, not quite as fun. It just kind of,
you know, fades out very quickly. Then, if we have a look at the one from Opus 4.8, look how boring
that is compared to what GLM 5.2 created. This is way better, way more fun, way more interesting. And that's what we want, really. So, on test three
and one, GLM 5.2 won. And then, on test number two, which is the galaxy orbit, you can see that Opus 4.8 won. Then, we've got the landing page test.
So, this is useful if you're checking, for example, you know, if it's actually creating something
useful for business. So, creating a website. Now, let's have a look at this. This is Opus 4.8, super basic, super boring, not much to it at all. Not
that interesting. If we have a look at Quen 3.7, it's okay. I mean, this is kind of weird because there's nothing here, right? It's kind of just like
a empty canvas. But the rest of it was okay. Then, if we have a look at GLM 5.2, if we scroll down,
it's got some nice animations. There's a lot more to the page, nice nicely but cleanly as well set up. And I like even like the animations of the
page. It looks super nice. And you see how it's actually filled in the canvas, whereas for example, Qwen 3.7 didn't do anything. And the one from Opus
4.8 super boring. So, that's the difference. This one the landing page test as well. Then we have the
arcade game. So, this is pretty cool, pretty fun from Qwen 3.7. But the only issue is you see how the ball doesn't actually bounce off the walls like
it just disappears completely. If we have a look at Opus 4.8, this is built something better that is more playable, more useful. And then if we have a
look at GLM 5.2 here, look how cool this is. This is way more fun and interesting. And so, GLM 5.2
won on pretty much all of the tests there apart from one, which is mind-blowing in itself. And so, in terms of the actual tests I've run here, I would
say the GLM 5.2, which is the new model from ZAI, is actually beating Opus 4.8 and definitely beating Qwen 3.7 max. Now, if we actually have a look at
the benchmarks here, Qwen 3.7 max is the strongest of all three, you know, Alibaba reports 80.4%
on SW bench verified. We don't have the benchmarks, we only have GLM 5.1 benchmarks, so it's not really that useful. But if we're comparing side by
side Qwen versus Claude, well, it's actually beating Opus 4.7 on the genetic coding. However, one thing to note here is the Opus 4.8 was so new when
Qwen 3.7 max came out that they didn't include Opus 4.8 on their benchmarks as well. So, pretty
interesting. For me personally, do I really pay much attention to benchmarks? No. I just test stuff in reality because, you know, just how can you
believe in the test run by the company that owns it? And also, do benchmarks from my experience always translate into what you see in reality? No. So,
there's a big difference here, but the main thing I would say is like, you know, China's GLM 5.2 so
far has been really, really good. And if we have a look inside the agent operating system, too, we can check the workspace and see what we've built
out here. And we created some awesome stuff, as you can see here, too. I mean, this is like a full open-world game. This is another one, kind of like
a Skyrim-style RPG. This was a fun one, too, as you can see here, right? And this was all created
using GLM 5.2. So, it's a pretty powerful model. And the other thing I would say here is like you can actually plug Qwen 3.7 Max directly into Hermes
Agent. And you can do that with GLM 5.2 as well on the coding plan. But you can't actually do that with Claude. So, Claude doesn't allow your
subscription to plug into your agents. Whereas, for example, we can create separate profiles for GLM 5.2,
for Qwen 3.7 Max, and for using Chimera 2.7, which is another model. So, when you're on these coding plans, you can easily swap them in and out of
your agents, which I think is super useful in itself as well. The other thing I would say here is like when I've been using Hermes with GLM 5.2, it
seems super slow to reply. Qwen 3.7 Max does seem a lot faster. And also, if you look at the quality of
responses here, so we asked GLM 5.2 to take a look at our Obsidian memory. It wasn't as useful as when we actually got the answer back from Qwen 3.7.
Qwen 3.7 actually reviewed all of our notes, looked at what we were ranking for, and then gave us some great SEO keyword research. When you check GLM
5.2, it is super brief and not as useful. So, it's pretty interesting to see like, "Okay, if I'm
using AI agents like Hermes, I'm I might not use GLM 5.2." But if I'm coding directly inside the CLI, for sure I'm going to use GLM 5.2 or Chimera
2.7. All right, these are great models have created some awesome stuff. So, it depends how you're going to use it as well. And another thing to note
here is we actually got a team of video agents to work together. And again, you can't really do this
with Claude unless you go to Claude directly. But with Hermes, you can easily get them to work together and then create some awesome stuff. So, if we
go to the Kanban board here, we got a team of agents to on some videos and fully curate it from scratch. And then if we open this up, this is the
finished video, as you can see. And this is fully AI generated. I just gave it the prompt, and then we
had the judge tell them to iterate and keep going until it was finally done. But yeah, again, pretty powerful model family AI agents work together.
So, thanks so much for watching. If you want to get my full agent operating system with everything plugged in, and we have multiple models. So, we
have all of these working together, all three coders in one place. And I would recommend that for you
because then you get the best out of all of these models, depending on their strengths. So, if we're actually coding on the back end, like I tend to
find that Claude is better for just putting them all together and orchestrating them. If I'm trying to create something really awesome and cool in
terms of like actual coding project, like you saw with the games that we created, then I'll probably go
to GLM 5.2. But the main thing is you want all of them in one place. And so if you want one dashboard where actually you've got the agent operating
system with one dashboard, one workspace, you can preview everything live, you can see it build, you can see them all working together with the memory
system, the memory galaxy. We've got Obsidian, and that's all inside the AI Profit Boardroom. Link in
the comments and description, or go to the aiprofitboardroom.com. Inside the community, you can ask questions. Inside the classroom, you get access to
all my best lessons. Inside the calendar, you can jump on weekly coaching calls. Hope to see you inside. Cheers for watching. Bye-bye.