GLM-5.1 vs GLM-5.2
Which one, when
These two Z.ai models match on modalities (text in, text out), capability flags (chat, code, reasoning, tools, long-context), 131072 max output tokens, and optional thinking, and they now share the same rate card: $1.4 input, $4.4 output and $0.26 cached reads on both. The one thing that separates them is context: glm-5.2, released 2026-06-16, takes 1000000 tokens, five times the 200000 of glm-5.1. Pick glm-5.2 for whole-repo or large-corpus prompts, and stay on glm-5.1 only if you are already pinned to it for stability.
Benchmarks
GLM-5.1: the vendor has not published benchmark scores.
Vendor-published: Alibaba (Qwen) Anthropic ByteDance DeepSeek Google MiniMax Moonshot OpenAI Tencent Z.ai
Pricing
| GLM-5.1 | GLM-5.2 | Δ | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / 1M tokens | $1.4 | $1.4 | = |
| Output / 1M tokens | $4.4 | $4.4 | = |
| Cache read / 1M tokens | $0.26 | $0.26 | = |
Rates from the live catalogue at build time; each model page carries the current rate card.
Where they sit · input price per 1M tokens across all 76 chat models on this billing unit (log scale)
Capabilities
Specs
| GLM-5.1 | GLM-5.2 | |
|---|---|---|
| Input modalities | text | text |
| Output modalities | text | text |
| Released | 2026-04-07 | 2026-06-16 |
| Context window | 200K | 1M |
| Max output | 131K | 131K |
| Thinking parameter | thinking.type |
|
| Accepted values | thinking.type
| thinking.type
reasoning_effort
|
| Default | enabled, and the model automatically determines whether to think | enabled, with reasoning_effort at max: the only GLM with an effort dial, and it defaults to the top of it |
Specs are transcribed from each vendor’s documentation; a row a vendor does not publish is left out rather than inferred. Full sources: GLM-5.1 · GLM-5.2
One prompt, both models, measured through the gateway
GLM-5.1 passed · 3 sentences
Enabling reasoning shifts the LLM from generating quick answers to producing hidden "chain-of-thought" tokens that systematically explore multiple solution paths before responding. Because billing is based on total tokens processed, these invisible reasoning tokens drastically increase input and output volume per query, often adding thousands of compute-intensive tokens to a single prompt. Consequently, our bill doubled not from higher per-token rates or increased user volume, but from the exponentially deeper computational work required to deliver higher-quality, more reliable outputs.
out 98 tok latency 7.8 s
GLM-5.2 passed · 3 sentences
Enabling reasoning means the LLM now generates thousands of invisible "thinking" tokens to systematically work through complex problems before producing a final answer. Because our cloud providers bill for these internal processing steps at the same rate as standard output, our billable token volume per query has doubled. While this increases our direct API costs, it drastically reduces error rates and manual review labor, ultimately lowering our total cost per resolved transaction.
out 1223 tok (+1138 thinking) latency 17.1 s
Instruction following (exactly three sentences, so countable), audience shaping (CFO register), and the hidden-thinking billing gap the token meters below expose.
GLM-5.1 passed · 8/8 cases
```python def longest_run(xs): if not xs: return 0 best = 1 cur = 1 for i in range(1, len(xs)): if xs[i] == xs[i - 1]: cur += 1 best = max(best, cur) else: cur = 1 return best ``` **Explanation:** The original function initialized `cur` and `best` to `0` and only incremented `cur` when a duplicate was found. This counts the number of *extra* equal items in a run rather than the total run length, so every run is reported as one shorter than it actually is—returning `0` for single-element lists and `L-1` for a run of length `L` (including those ending at the last index). The fix initializes `cur` and `best` to `1` (when the list is non‑empty) and resets `cur` to `1` on a mismatch, so `cur` tracks the full length of the current run and `best` records the true maximum.
out 3823 tok (+3585 thinking) latency 49.7 s
GLM-5.2 missed · 1/8 cases (fails [1])
```python def longest_run(xs): if not xs: return 0 best = 1 cur = 1 for i in range(1, len(xs)): if xs[i] == xs[i - 1]: cur += 1 […]
out 4097 tok (+4036 thinking) latency 58.4 s
Whether the fix is actually correct (runnable), explanation density, and token efficiency on a bounded task.
GLM-5.1 passed · 5/5 fields, guidance "withheld pending the Q4 close"
```json { "company": "Meridian Robotics", "quarter": "September quarter", "revenue_usd_m": 412, "growth_pct": "eleven and change", "guidance": "withheld pending the Q4 close" } ```
out 1091 tok (+1028 thinking) latency 15.2 s
GLM-5.2 passed · 5/5 fields, guidance "withheld"
```json { "company": "Meridian Robotics", "quarter": "September quarter", "revenue_usd_m": 412, "growth_pct": 11, "guidance": "withheld" } ```
out 1947 tok (+1893 thinking) latency 30.9 s
Schema obedience (no invented fields), hallucination pressure (guidance is explicitly withheld), and structured-output path differences.
GLM-5.1 passed · 120 words, 0 banned, 1 question
We are excited to introduce Prompt Cache for our API Gateway. This new feature stores responses for identical prompts, routing subsequent requests directly to the cache instead of calling the underlying AI provider. Are you tired of paying multiple times for the exact same query? Prompt Cache solves this by recognizing duplicate inputs across all supported providers, drastically reducing latency and operational costs. When a user submits a request that matches a previously cached prompt, the gateway returns the stored answer instantly. You can configure cache expiration and scope rules via your dashboard to maintain data freshness. Stop wasting budget on redundant computational work. Upgrade to the latest gateway tier today to start saving time and money on every call.
out 3935 tok (+3802 thinking) latency 41.1 s
GLM-5.2 passed · 120 words, 0 banned, 1 question
We are introducing Caching for our API Gateway, the smartest way to optimize your workflows. Why pay for the exact same response twice? Now, you can automatically store and reuse prompt results across multiple AI providers, drastically reducing latency and overall operational costs. If a user submits a duplicate query, the gateway serves the cached answer instantly, regardless of whether you route to OpenAI, Anthropic, or others. This directly translates to faster applications and significantly lower monthly API bills. You can easily configure your specific caching rules within the developer dashboard and watch your efficiency soar. Stop wasting your valuable tokens on completely redundant computations. Upgrade to the latest gateway version today and experience the future of intelligent prompt management.
out 11125 tok (+10984 thinking) latency 114.8 s
Constraint obedience (word budget, banned-word list, the single question), style fingerprint, and length control.
Switch between them with one line
Both ids are in every tab below; the highlighted pair of lines is the only edit. Same endpoint, same key, same request shape.
from openai import OpenAI
client = OpenAI(
base_url="https://synthorai.io/v1",
api_key="sk-syn-...",
)
resp = client.chat.completions.create(
model="glm-5.1",
# model="glm-5.2", # uncomment this line, comment the one above
messages=[{"role": "user", "content": "Summarize this diff"}],
reasoning_effort="medium",
)
print(resp.choices[0].message.content)import OpenAI from "openai";
const client = new OpenAI({
baseURL: "https://synthorai.io/v1",
apiKey: "sk-syn-...",
});
const resp = await client.chat.completions.create({
model: "glm-5.1",
// model: "glm-5.2", // uncomment this line, comment the one above
messages: [{ role: "user", content: "Summarize this diff" }],
reasoning_effort: "medium",
});
console.log(resp.choices[0].message.content);curl https://synthorai.io/v1/chat/completions \
-H "Authorization: Bearer sk-syn-..." \
-H "Content-Type: application/json" \
-d '{
"model": "glm-5.1",
# "model": "glm-5.2", # uncomment this line, comment the one above
"messages": [{"role": "user", "content": "Hello"}],
"reasoning_effort": "medium"
}'package main
import (
"context"
"fmt"
"github.com/openai/openai-go/v3"
"github.com/openai/openai-go/v3/option"
)
func main() {
client := openai.NewClient(
option.WithBaseURL("https://synthorai.io/v1"),
option.WithAPIKey("sk-syn-..."),
)
resp, _ := client.Chat.Completions.New(context.TODO(), openai.ChatCompletionNewParams{
Model: "glm-5.1",
// Model: "glm-5.2", // uncomment this line, comment the one above
Messages: []openai.ChatCompletionMessageParamUnion{
openai.UserMessage("Summarize this diff"),
},
ReasoningEffort: openai.ReasoningEffortMedium,
})
fmt.Println(resp.Choices[0].Message.Content)
}import com.openai.client.OpenAIClient;
import com.openai.client.okhttp.OpenAIOkHttpClient;
import com.openai.models.chat.completions.*;
import com.openai.models.ReasoningEffort;
OpenAIClient client = OpenAIOkHttpClient.builder()
.baseUrl("https://synthorai.io/v1")
.apiKey("sk-syn-...")
.build();
ChatCompletion resp = client.chat().completions().create(
ChatCompletionCreateParams.builder()
.model("glm-5.1")
// .model("glm-5.2") // uncomment this line, comment the one above
.addUserMessage("Summarize this diff")
.reasoningEffort(ReasoningEffort.MEDIUM)
.build());
System.out.println(resp.choices().get(0).message().content().orElse(""));FAQ
Which is cheaper, GLM-5.1 or GLM-5.2?
They list the same price on the "Input / 1M tokens" row ($1.4), so price does not decide this one. See the specs and capabilities below.
Can I A/B test GLM-5.1 against GLM-5.2 without two integrations?
Yes. Both are served through the same OpenAI-compatible endpoint with one API key. Switching is a one-line change to the model id, so you can route a fraction of traffic to each and compare bills directly.
Do GLM-5.1 and GLM-5.2 support prompt caching?
Yes. Both bill cache reads below their input rate, so warm-prefix workloads cost less than the list rates suggest. The exact cache-read rows are in the pricing table above.