Skip to content

Fugu Ultra vs GLM 5.2

Fugu Ultra

sakana

40#299
vs
GLM 5.2

Zhipu AI

69#133
Signal-by-Signal Comparison
SignalFugu UltraDeltaGLM 5.2
Capabilities
100
+33
67
Pricing
70
-23
93
Context window size
95
0
96
Recency
100
--
100
Output Capacity
82
-14
96
Benchmarks
0
-69
69
Overall Result
1 wins
of 6
4 wins
GLM 5.2 wins 4 of 6 signals

Score History

Score History (21 data points)
Fugu UltraGLM 5.2
Fugu Ultra

40

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)

Fugu Ultra

sakana

Per request$0.020000
Daily$66.67
Monthly$2000.00
Annual$24000.00

GLM 5.2

Zhipu AI

Best Value
Per request$0.003406
Daily$11.35
Monthly$340.60
Annual$4087.20

GLM 5.2 saves you $1659.40/month

That's $19912.80/year compared to Fugu Ultra at your current usage level of 100K calls/month.

83% cheaper
Choose GLM 5.2 for cost optimization

Fugu Ultra pricing:
Input:$5.00/M tokens
Output:$30.00/M tokens
GLM 5.2 pricing:
Input:$0.01/M tokens
Output:$6.80/M tokens
Fugu Ultra

sakana

40

Composite Score

Winner
GLM 5.2

Zhipu AI

69

Composite Score

Signal-by-Signal Comparison
MetricFugu UltraGLM 5.2Winner
Overall Score
40
69
GLM 5.2
Rank#299#133
GLM 5.2
Quality Rank#299#133
GLM 5.2
Adoption Rank#299#133
GLM 5.2
Parameters------
Context Window1000K1049K
GLM 5.2
Pricing$5.00/$30.00/M$0.01/$6.80/M--
Signal Scores
Capabilities
100
67
Fugu Ultra
Pricing
70
93
GLM 5.2
Context window size
95
96
GLM 5.2
Recency
100
100
Fugu Ultra
Output Capacity
82
96
GLM 5.2
Benchmarks--
69
GLM 5.2
Benchmark Head-to-Head(1 benchmarks)
Fugu Ultra: 0GLM 5.2: 0
Fugu Ultra
GLM 5.2
Normalized 0-100%
MMLU-Pro
-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.

Fugu UltraEntry Level

Scores 40/100 (rank #299), placing it in the top -3% of all 290 models tracked.

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

Scores 69/100 (rank #133), placing it in the top 54% of all 290 models tracked.

Raw Quality0/100
Cost Efficiency0/100
Speed0/100

GLM 5.2 has a 29-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 Ultra 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 Ultra
Input cost$5.00/M tokens
Output cost$30.00/M tokens
Cost per quality point$0.875
Est. monthly (1M tokens/day)$525.00
GLM 5.2Best Value
Input cost$0.01/M tokens
Output cost$6.80/M tokens
Cost per quality point$0.099
Est. monthly (1M tokens/day)$102.09

GLM 5.2 offers 81% better value per quality point. At 1M tokens/day, you'd spend $102.09/month with GLM 5.2 vs $525.00/month with Fugu Ultra - a $422.91 monthly difference.

Latency & Speed
Fugu UltraFaster
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 Ultra

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 Ultra

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 ($6.80/M) reduces costs when processing thousands of records daily

GLM 5.2

Creative writing & content

Higher overall composite score (69/100) 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 Ultra
Which Should You Choose?
Our recommendation:
GLM 5.2

GLM 5.2 clearly outperforms Fugu Ultra with a significant 28.900000000000006-point lead. For most general use cases, GLM 5.2 is the stronger choice. However, Fugu Ultra 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 - 81% lower pricing; better value at scale
Capability Comparison
CapabilityFugu UltraGLM 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 Ultra

sakana

$45.00
estimated monthly cost

GLM 5.2

Zhipu AI

Best Value
$8.17
estimated monthly cost

GLM 5.2 saves you $36.83/month

That's 82% cheaper than Fugu Ultra 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 UltraGLM 5.2
Context Window1M1.0M
Max Output Tokens128,000943,718
Open SourceNoYes
CreatedJun 24, 2026Jun 16, 2026
Last updated: 9m ago

相关对比

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