Z.ai (Zhipu AI)GLM-5.1VSZ.ai (Zhipu AI)GLM-5.2
Our Take
We recommend choosing GLM-5.2 because it outperforms or matches GLM-5.1 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 GLM-5.1 scored 58.4%.
Reasoning Benchmarks: Both models were evaluated on the GPQA Diamond benchmark. GLM-5.2 scored 91.2%, while GLM-5.1 scored 86.2%.
Context Window: GLM-5.2 supports a 1M context window compared to 203k for GLM-5.1.
Cost Comparison: GLM-5.2 blended CPM is $1.4/$4.4 compared to $1.4/$4.4 for GLM-5.1.
Was this recommendation helpful?
Benchmarks & Scores
Coding (swe-bench-pro)
58.4%complex codebases, multi-file repositories, and architectural planning
Reasoning (gpqa-diamond)
86.2%graduate-level science QA
Cost & Context
Cost (per 1M tokens)
$2.15Input: $1.40 | Output: $4.40Context Window
202.75k tokensBenchmarks & Scores
Coding (swe-bench-pro)Winner (+3.7%)
62.1%complex codebases, multi-file repositories, and architectural planning
Reasoning (gpqa-diamond)Winner (+5.0%)
91.2%graduate-level science QA
Cost & Context
Cost (per 1M tokens)
$2.15Input: $1.40 | Output: $4.40Context WindowLarger
1.05M tokensFrequently Asked Questions about GLM-5.1 vs GLM-5.2
Both GLM-5.1 and GLM-5.2 cost the same, with a blended cost of $2.15 per 1 million 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 GLM-5.1 which scores 58.4%.
Related Matchups
Explore similar comparisons for GLM-5.1 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.