AnthropicClaude Sonnet 4.6VSZ.ai (Zhipu AI)GLM-5.2
Our Take
Standardized reasoning and coding benchmarks are currently pending verification for one or both of these models. We recommend testing Claude Sonnet 4.6 and GLM-5.2 directly in their respective provider playgrounds to see which fits your specific prompt styles best.
Was this recommendation helpful?
Benchmarks & Scores
Coding (swe-bench-pro)
N/Acomplex codebases, multi-file repositories, and architectural planning
Reasoning (gpqa-diamond)
79.9%graduate-level science QA
Cost & Context
Cost (per 1M tokens)
$6.00Input: $3.00 | Output: $15.00Context Window
1.05M tokensBenchmarks & Scores
Coding (swe-bench-pro)
62.1%complex codebases, multi-file repositories, and architectural planning
Reasoning (gpqa-diamond)Winner (+11.3%)
91.2%graduate-level science QA
Cost & Context
Cost (per 1M tokens)2.8x cheaper
$2.15Input: $1.40 | Output: $4.40Context Window
1.05M tokensFrequently Asked Questions about Claude Sonnet 4.6 vs GLM-5.2
GLM-5.2 is cheaper than Claude Sonnet 4.6. GLM-5.2 has a blended cost of $2.15/1M tokens, which is about 2.8x cheaper than Claude Sonnet 4.6 at $6.00/1M tokens.
Related Matchups
Explore similar comparisons for Claude Sonnet 4.6 and GLM-5.2.
Do you want to find a model for your constraints?
Use our interactive model finder to filter LLMs by reasoning capability, coding performance, cost, and context length.