Skip to content

o3 vs GLM 5.2

o3

OpenAI

87#59
vs
GLM 5.2

Zhipu AI

69#136
Signal-by-Signal Comparison
Signalo3DeltaGLM 5.2
Capabilities
100
+33
67
Benchmarks
88
+20
69
Pricing
92
-1
93
Context window size
84
-11
96
Recency
31
-69
100
Output Capacity
80
-16
96
Overall Result
2 wins
of 6
4 wins
GLM 5.2 wins 4 of 6 signals

Score History

Score History (37 data points)
o3GLM 5.2
o3

86.7

current score

Leader

o3

right now

GLM 5.2

68.9

current score

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

o3

OpenAI

Per request$0.006000
Daily$20.00
Monthly$600.00
Annual$7200.00

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 $246.59/month

That's $2959.08/year compared to o3 at your current usage level of 100K calls/month.

41% cheaper
Choose GLM 5.2 for cost optimization

o3 pricing:
Input:$2.00/M tokens
Output:$8.00/M tokens
GLM 5.2 pricing:
Input:$0.03/M tokens
Output:$7.00/M tokens
Winner
o3

OpenAI

87

Composite Score

GLM 5.2

Zhipu AI

69

Composite Score

Signal-by-Signal Comparison
Metrico3GLM 5.2Winner
Overall Score
87
69
o3
Rank#59#136
o3
Quality Rank#59#136
o3
Adoption Rank#59#136
o3
Parameters------
Context Window200K1049K
GLM 5.2
Pricing$2.00/$8.00/M$0.03/$7.00/M--
Signal Scores
Capabilities
100
67
o3
Benchmarks
88
69
o3
Pricing
92
93
GLM 5.2
Context window size
84
96
GLM 5.2
Recency
31
100
GLM 5.2
Output Capacity
80
96
GLM 5.2
Benchmark Head-to-Head(12 benchmarks)
o3: 0GLM 5.2: 1
o3
GLM 5.2
Normalized 0-100%
MMLU
92.3%-
MMLU-Pro
85.8%86%
GPQA Diamond
87.7%-
MATH-500
99%-
HumanEval
97%-
SWE-bench Verified
71.7%-
AIME 2024
96.7%-
IFEval
92%-
BBH
93%-
Arena Elo
1415-
LiveBench
74.8%-
HLE
30.1%-
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.

o3Elite Tier

Scores 87/100 (rank #59), placing it in the top 80% of all 290 models tracked.

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

Scores 69/100 (rank #136), placing it in the top 53% of all 290 models tracked.

Raw Quality0/100
Cost Efficiency0/100
Speed0/100

o3 has a 18-point advantage, which typically translates to noticeably stronger performance on complex reasoning, code generation, and multi-step tasks.

When to Use Each Model

Choose o3 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:

  • 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
o3
Input cost$2.00/M tokens
Output cost$8.00/M tokens
Cost per quality point$0.115
Est. monthly (1M tokens/day)$150.00
GLM 5.2Best Value
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 5.2 offers 30% better value per quality point. At 1M tokens/day, you'd spend $105.51/month with GLM 5.2 vs $150.00/month with o3 - a $44.49 monthly difference.

Latency & Speed
o3Faster
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

o3

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

o3

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 ($7.00/M) reduces costs when processing thousands of records daily

GLM 5.2

Creative writing & content

Higher overall composite score (87/100) correlates with better nuance, coherence, and style in long-form content

o3

Image understanding & OCR

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

o3
Which Should You Choose?
Our recommendation:
o3

o3 clearly outperforms GLM 5.2 with a significant 17.799999999999997-point lead. For most general use cases, o3 is the stronger choice. However, GLM 5.2 may still excel in niche scenarios.

o3
Recommended

by OpenAI

  • 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

by Zhipu AI

  • Choose for Cost - 30% lower pricing; better value at scale
Capability Comparison
Capabilityo3GLM 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)

o3

OpenAI

$13.20
estimated monthly cost

GLM 5.2

Zhipu AI

Best Value
$8.46
estimated monthly cost

GLM 5.2 saves you $4.74/month

That's 36% cheaper than o3 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
Parametero3GLM 5.2
Context Window200K1.0M
Max Output Tokens100,000943,718
Open SourceNoYes
CreatedApr 16, 2025Jun 16, 2026
Last updated: 32m ago

相关对比

o3 vs GLM 5.2 (2026) | LM Market Cap