Skip to content

Fugu Max vs GLM 5.2

Fugu Max

sakana

40#244
vs
GLM 5.2

Zhipu AI

79#103
Signal-by-Signal Comparison
SignalFugu MaxDeltaGLM 5.2
Capabilities
100
+33
67
Pricing
94
-4
98
Context window size
95
0
96
Recency
100
--
100
Output Capacity
82
0
82
Benchmarks
0
-81
81
Overall Result
1 wins
of 6
4 wins
GLM 5.2 wins 4 of 6 signals

Score History

Score History (14 data points)
Fugu MaxGLM 5.2
Fugu Max

40

current score

Leader

GLM 5.2

right now

GLM 5.2

78.6

current score

LMMarketCap.com
Interactive Price Comparison
100Kcalls/month
1,000tokens (~1,333 chars)
500tokens (~667 chars)

Fugu Max

sakana

Per request$0.005000
Daily$16.67
Monthly$500.00
Annual$6000.00

GLM 5.2

Zhipu AI

Best Value
Per request$0.001426
Daily$4.75
Monthly$142.56
Annual$1710.72

GLM 5.2 saves you $357.44/month

That's $4289.28/year compared to Fugu Max at your current usage level of 100K calls/month.

71% cheaper
Choose GLM 5.2 for cost optimization

Fugu Max pricing:
Input:$2.00/M tokens
Output:$6.00/M tokens
GLM 5.2 pricing:
Input:$0.55/M tokens
Output:$1.74/M tokens
Fugu Max

sakana

40

Composite Score

Winner
GLM 5.2

Zhipu AI

79

Composite Score

Signal-by-Signal Comparison
MetricFugu MaxGLM 5.2Winner
Overall Score
40
79
GLM 5.2
Rank#244#103
GLM 5.2
Quality Rank#244#103
GLM 5.2
Adoption Rank#244#103
GLM 5.2
Parameters------
Context Window1000K1049K
GLM 5.2
Pricing$2.00/$6.00/M$0.55/$1.74/M--
Signal Scores
Capabilities
100
67
Fugu Max
Pricing
94
98
GLM 5.2
Context window size
95
96
GLM 5.2
Recency
100
100
Fugu Max
Output Capacity
82
82
GLM 5.2
Benchmarks--
81
GLM 5.2
Benchmark Head-to-Head(2 benchmarks)
Fugu Max: 0GLM 5.2: 0
Fugu Max
GLM 5.2
Normalized 0-100%
MMLU-Pro
-86%
Arena Elo
-1458
Benchmark Interpretation

Our score (0-100) is driven by benchmark performance (90%) from Arena Elo ratings, MMLU, GPQA, HumanEval, SWE-bench, and 15+ standardized evaluations. Capabilities and context window serve as tiebreakers (10%). Learn more about our methodology.

Fugu MaxEntry Level

Scores 40/100 (rank #244), placing it in the top 16% of all 290 models tracked.

Raw Quality0/100
Cost Efficiency0/100
Speed0/100
GLM 5.2Strong Performer

Scores 79/100 (rank #103), placing it in the top 65% of all 290 models tracked.

Raw Quality0/100
Cost Efficiency0/100
Speed0/100

GLM 5.2 has a 39-point advantage, which typically translates to noticeably stronger performance on complex reasoning, code generation, and multi-step tasks.

When to Use Each Model

Choose Fugu Max when you need:

  • Multimodal workflows that require image understanding
  • Step-by-step reasoning and chain-of-thought problem solving

Choose GLM 5.2 when you need:

  • High-volume production workloads where API costs must be minimized
  • Step-by-step reasoning and chain-of-thought problem solving
  • Self-hosted deployments where you need full control over the model
Cost-Performance Analysis
Fugu Max
Input cost$2.00/M tokens
Output cost$6.00/M tokens
Cost per quality point$0.200
Est. monthly (1M tokens/day)$120.00
GLM 5.2Best Value
Input cost$0.55/M tokens
Output cost$1.74/M tokens
Cost per quality point$0.029
Est. monthly (1M tokens/day)$34.45

GLM 5.2 offers 71% better value per quality point. At 1M tokens/day, you'd spend $34.45/month with GLM 5.2 vs $120.00/month with Fugu Max - a $85.55 monthly difference.

Latency & Speed
Fugu MaxFaster
Speed score0/100
GLM 5.2
Speed score0/100

Both models have comparable response speeds. For most applications, the latency difference is negligible.

When latency matters most: Interactive chatbots, IDE code completion, real-time translation, and user-facing applications where response time directly impacts experience. For batch processing, background summarization, or offline analysis, latency is less critical.

Example Use Cases

Code generation & review

Based on overall model capabilities and architecture for coding tasks like generating functions, debugging, and refactoring

Fugu Max

Customer support chatbot

Suitable for user-facing chat with competitive response times. GLM 5.2 also offers lower per-token costs for high-volume support

Fugu Max

Long document analysis

Larger context window (1049K tokens) can process longer documents, contracts, and research papers in a single pass

GLM 5.2

Batch data extraction

Lower output pricing ($1.74/M) reduces costs when processing thousands of records daily

GLM 5.2

Creative writing & content

Higher overall composite score (79/100) correlates with better nuance, coherence, and style in long-form content

GLM 5.2

Image understanding & OCR

Supports vision input - can analyze screenshots, diagrams, photos, and scanned documents directly

Fugu Max
Which Should You Choose?
Our recommendation:
GLM 5.2

GLM 5.2 clearly outperforms Fugu Max with a significant 38.599999999999994-point lead. For most general use cases, GLM 5.2 is the stronger choice. However, Fugu Max may still excel in niche scenarios.

by sakana

  • Choose for Quality - Marginally better benchmark scores; both are excellent
  • Choose for Reliability - Higher uptime and faster response speeds
  • Choose for Prototyping - Stronger community support and better developer experience
  • Choose for Production - Wider enterprise adoption and proven at scale
GLM 5.2
Recommended

by Zhipu AI

  • Choose for Cost - 71% lower pricing; better value at scale
Capability Comparison
CapabilityFugu MaxGLM 5.2
Vision (Image Input)differs
Function Calling
Streaming
JSON Mode
Reasoning
Web Searchdiffers
Image Output
Monthly Cost Calculator
1,000tokens (600 in / 400 out)
100requests/day (3,000/month)

Fugu Max

sakana

$10.80
estimated monthly cost

GLM 5.2

Zhipu AI

Best Value
$3.09
estimated monthly cost

GLM 5.2 saves you $7.71/month

That's 71% cheaper than Fugu Max at 1,000 tokens/request and 100 requests/day.

Assumes 60% input / 40% output token ratio per request. Actual costs may vary based on your usage pattern.

Parameters & Context
ParameterFugu MaxGLM 5.2
Context Window1M1.0M
Max Output Tokens128,000131,072
Open SourceNoYes
CreatedSep 11, 2026Jun 16, 2026
Last updated: 56m ago

Related comparisons

Fugu Max vs GLM 5.2 (2026) | LM Market Cap