Skip to content

GLM 5.2 (batch) vs GLM 5.3 (batch)

GLM 5.2 (batch)

Zhipu AI

69#131
vs
GLM 5.3 (batch)

Zhipu AI

69#129
Signal-by-Signal Comparison
SignalGLM 5.2 (batch)DeltaGLM 5.3 (batch)
Capabilities
67
--
67
Benchmarks
69
--
69
Pricing
99
--
99
Context window size
96
--
96
Recency
100
--
100
Output Capacity
96
--
96
Overall Result
0 wins
of 6
0 wins
It's a tie - both models win 0 signals each

Score History

Score History (12 data points)
GLM 5.2 (batch)GLM 5.3 (batch)
GLM 5.2 (batch)

68.9

current score

Leader

Tied

right now

GLM 5.3 (batch)

68.9

current score

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

GLM 5.2 (batch)

Zhipu AI

Per request$0.001120
Daily$3.73
Monthly$112.00
Annual$1344.00

GLM 5.3 (batch)

Zhipu AI

Per request$0.001120
Daily$3.73
Monthly$112.00
Annual$1344.00
GLM 5.2 (batch) pricing:
Input:$0.37/M tokens
Output:$1.50/M tokens
GLM 5.3 (batch) pricing:
Input:$0.37/M tokens
Output:$1.50/M tokens
Tie
GLM 5.2 (batch)

Zhipu AI

69

Composite Score

Tie
GLM 5.3 (batch)

Zhipu AI

69

Composite Score

Signal-by-Signal Comparison
MetricGLM 5.2 (batch)GLM 5.3 (batch)Winner
Overall Score
69
69
--
Rank#131#129
GLM 5.3 (batch)
Quality Rank#131#129
GLM 5.3 (batch)
Adoption Rank#131#129
GLM 5.3 (batch)
Parameters------
Context Window1049K1049K--
Pricing$0.37/$1.50/M$0.37/$1.50/M--
Signal Scores
Capabilities
67
67
GLM 5.2 (batch)
Benchmarks
69
69
GLM 5.2 (batch)
Pricing
99
99
GLM 5.2 (batch)
Context window size
96
96
GLM 5.2 (batch)
Recency
100
100
GLM 5.2 (batch)
Output Capacity
96
96
GLM 5.2 (batch)
Benchmark Head-to-Head(1 benchmarks)
GLM 5.2: 01 tiesGLM 5.3: 0
GLM 5.2
GLM 5.3
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 5.2 (batch)Competitive

Scores 69/100 (rank #131), placing it in the top 55% of all 290 models tracked.

Raw Quality0/100
Cost Efficiency0/100
Speed0/100
GLM 5.3 (batch)Competitive

Scores 69/100 (rank #129), placing it in the top 56% of all 290 models tracked.

Raw Quality0/100
Cost Efficiency0/100
Speed0/100

With only a 0-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 5.2 (batch) when you need:

  • Step-by-step reasoning and chain-of-thought problem solving
  • Self-hosted deployments where you need full control over the model

Choose GLM 5.3 (batch) when you need:

  • 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 5.2 (batch)Best Value
Input cost$0.37/M tokens
Output cost$1.50/M tokens
Cost per quality point$0.027
Est. monthly (1M tokens/day)$28.05
GLM 5.3 (batch)
Input cost$0.37/M tokens
Output cost$1.50/M tokens
Cost per quality point$0.027
Est. monthly (1M tokens/day)$28.05

Both models are priced similarly, so the decision comes down to quality and features rather than cost.

Latency & Speed
GLM 5.2 (batch)Faster
Speed score0/100
GLM 5.3 (batch)
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 5.2 (batch)

Customer support chatbot

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

GLM 5.2 (batch)

Long document analysis

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

GLM 5.2 (batch)

Batch data extraction

Lower output pricing ($1.50/M) reduces costs when processing thousands of records daily

GLM 5.2 (batch)

Creative writing & content

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

GLM 5.2 (batch)
Which Should You Choose?
Our recommendation:
GLM 5.2 (batch)

GLM 5.2 (batch) and GLM 5.3 (batch) are extremely close in overall performance (only 0 points apart). Your best choice depends entirely on which specific strengths matter most for your use case.

GLM 5.2 (batch)
Recommended

by Zhipu AI

  • Choose for Quality - Marginally better benchmark scores; both are excellent
  • Choose for Cost - 0% 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

by Zhipu AI

Consider for specialized use cases.

Capability Comparison
CapabilityGLM 5.2 (batch)GLM 5.3 (batch)
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 5.2 (batch)

Zhipu AI

$2.47
estimated monthly cost

GLM 5.3 (batch)

Zhipu AI

$2.47
estimated monthly cost

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

Parameters & Context
ParameterGLM 5.2 (batch)GLM 5.3 (batch)
Context Window1.0M1.0M
Max Output Tokens943,718943,718
Open SourceYesYes
CreatedJun 16, 2026Aug 18, 2026
Last updated: 4m ago

相关对比

GLM 5.2 (batch) vs GLM 5.3 (batch) (2026) | LM Market Cap