Skip to content

GLM 5.1 vs GLM 5.2

GLM 5.1

Zhipu AI

68#139
vs
GLM 5.2

Zhipu AI

69#137
Signal-by-Signal Comparison
SignalGLM 5.1DeltaGLM 5.2
Capabilities
67
--
67
Benchmarks
69
--
69
Pricing
96
+3
93
Context window size
84
-11
96
Recency
96
-4
100
Output Capacity
82
-14
96
Overall Result
1 wins
of 6
3 wins
GLM 5.2 wins 3 of 6 signals

Score History

Score History (29 data points)
GLM 5.1GLM 5.2
GLM 5.1

68.3

current score

Leader

GLM 5.2

right now

GLM 5.2

68.9

current score

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

GLM 5.1

Zhipu AI

Per request$0.003600
Daily$12.00
Monthly$360.00
Annual$4320.00

GLM 5.2

Zhipu AI

Best Value
Per request$0.003534
Daily$11.78
Monthly$353.41
Annual$4240.92

GLM 5.2 saves you $6.59/month

That's $79.08/year compared to GLM 5.1 at your current usage level of 100K calls/month.

2% cheaper
Choose GLM 5.2 for cost optimization

GLM 5.1 pricing:
Input:$1.40/M tokens
Output:$4.40/M tokens
GLM 5.2 pricing:
Input:$0.03/M tokens
Output:$7.00/M tokens
GLM 5.1

Zhipu AI

68

Composite Score

Winner
GLM 5.2

Zhipu AI

69

Composite Score

Signal-by-Signal Comparison
MetricGLM 5.1GLM 5.2Winner
Overall Score
68
69
GLM 5.2
Rank#139#137
GLM 5.2
Quality Rank#139#137
GLM 5.2
Adoption Rank#139#137
GLM 5.2
Parameters------
Context Window205K1049K
GLM 5.2
Pricing$1.40/$4.40/M$0.03/$7.00/M--
Signal Scores
Capabilities
67
67
GLM 5.1
Benchmarks
69
69
GLM 5.1
Pricing
96
93
GLM 5.1
Context window size
84
96
GLM 5.2
Recency
96
100
GLM 5.2
Output Capacity
82
96
GLM 5.2
Benchmark Head-to-Head(1 benchmarks)
GLM 5.1: 01 tiesGLM 5.2: 0
GLM 5.1
GLM 5.2
Normalized 0-100%
MMLU-Pro
86%86%
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.

GLM 5.1Competitive

Scores 68/100 (rank #139), placing it in the top 52% of all 290 models tracked.

Raw Quality0/100
Cost Efficiency0/100
Speed0/100
GLM 5.2Competitive

Scores 69/100 (rank #137), placing it in the top 53% of all 290 models tracked.

Raw Quality0/100
Cost Efficiency0/100
Speed0/100

With only a 1-point gap, these models are in the same performance tier. The practical difference in output quality is minimal - your choice should depend on pricing, latency requirements, and specific feature needs.

When to Use Each Model

Choose GLM 5.1 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

Choose GLM 5.2 when you need:

  • Processing long documents or large codebases (1049K token context)
  • Step-by-step reasoning and chain-of-thought problem solving
  • Self-hosted deployments where you need full control over the model
Cost-Performance Analysis
GLM 5.1Best Value
Input cost$1.40/M tokens
Output cost$4.40/M tokens
Cost per quality point$0.085
Est. monthly (1M tokens/day)$87.00
GLM 5.2
Input cost$0.03/M tokens
Output cost$7.00/M tokens
Cost per quality point$0.102
Est. monthly (1M tokens/day)$105.51

GLM 5.1 offers 18% better value per quality point. At 1M tokens/day, you'd spend $87.00/month with GLM 5.1 vs $105.51/month with GLM 5.2 - a $18.51 monthly difference.

Latency & Speed
GLM 5.1Faster
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

GLM 5.1

Customer support chatbot

Suitable for user-facing chat with competitive response times. GLM 5.1 also offers lower per-token costs for high-volume support

GLM 5.1

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 ($4.40/M) reduces costs when processing thousands of records daily

GLM 5.1

Creative writing & content

Higher overall composite score (69/100) correlates with better nuance, coherence, and style in long-form content

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

GLM 5.1 and GLM 5.2 are extremely close in overall performance (only 0.6000000000000085 points apart). Your best choice depends entirely on which specific strengths matter most for your use case.

by Zhipu AI

  • Choose for Quality - Marginally better benchmark scores; both are excellent
  • Choose for Cost - 18% lower pricing; better value at scale
  • 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

Consider for specialized use cases.

Capability Comparison
CapabilityGLM 5.1GLM 5.2
Vision (Image Input)
Function Calling
Streaming
JSON Mode
Reasoning
Web Search
Image Output
Monthly Cost Calculator
1,000tokens (600 in / 400 out)
100requests/day (3,000/month)

GLM 5.1

Zhipu AI

Best Value
$7.80
estimated monthly cost

GLM 5.2

Zhipu AI

$8.46
estimated monthly cost

GLM 5.1 saves you $0.6614/month

That's 8% cheaper than GLM 5.2 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
ParameterGLM 5.1GLM 5.2
Context Window205K1.0M
Max Output Tokens131,072943,718
Open SourceYesYes
CreatedApr 7, 2026Jun 16, 2026
Last updated: 2m ago

Related comparisons

GLM 5.1 vs GLM 5.2 (2026) | LM Market Cap