xAIGrok 4.20VSZ.ai (Zhipu AI)GLM-5.2
Our Take
We recommend choosing GLM-5.2 because it outperforms or matches Grok 4.20 across reasoning, coding, and context capacity while being cheaper or equal in cost. Choose GLM-5.2 for superior overall value.
▶WHY?
Benchmark Calculations & Evidence:
Coding Benchmarks: Both models were evaluated on the SWE-bench Pro benchmark. GLM-5.2 scored 62.1%, while Grok 4.20 scored 51.8%.
Reasoning Benchmarks: Both models were evaluated on the GPQA Diamond benchmark. GLM-5.2 scored 91.2%, while Grok 4.20 scored 90%.
Context Window: GLM-5.2 supports a 1M context window compared to 1M for Grok 4.20.
Cost Comparison: GLM-5.2 blended CPM is $1.4/$4.4 compared to $2/$6 for Grok 4.20.
Was this recommendation helpful?
Benchmarks & Scores
Coding (swe-bench-pro)
51.8%complex codebases, multi-file repositories, and architectural planning
Reasoning (gpqa-diamond)
90%graduate-level science QA
Cost & Context
Cost (per 1M tokens)
$3.00Input: $2.00 | Output: $6.00Context Window
1.05M tokensBenchmarks & Scores
Coding (swe-bench-pro)Winner (+10.3%)
62.1%complex codebases, multi-file repositories, and architectural planning
Reasoning (gpqa-diamond)Winner (+1.2%)
91.2%graduate-level science QA
Cost & Context
Cost (per 1M tokens)1.4x cheaper
$2.15Input: $1.40 | Output: $4.40Context Window
1.05M tokensFrequently Asked Questions about Grok 4.20 vs GLM-5.2
GLM-5.2 is cheaper than Grok 4.20. GLM-5.2 has a blended cost of $2.15/1M tokens, which is about 1.4x cheaper than Grok 4.20 at $3.00/1M tokens.
GLM-5.2 is better for coding tasks on this benchmark. It scores 62.1% on swe-bench-pro (complex codebases, multi-file repositories, and architectural planning) compared to Grok 4.20 which scores 51.8%.
Related Matchups
Explore similar comparisons for Grok 4.20 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.