GLM-5 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. Two things separate them. Context: glm-5.2, released 2026-06-16, takes 1000000 tokens, five times the 200000 of glm-5 from 2026-02-12, and it adds a reasoning-effort dial. And the rate card: glm-5 runs about 1.4x below glm-5.2 on both token lines, $1 against $1.4 on input and $3.2 against $4.4 on output, and 1.3x below on cached reads, $0.2 against $0.26. Pick glm-5.2 for whole-repo or large-corpus prompts; stay on glm-5 when the job fits in 200000 tokens and price matters.
Benchmarks
17 measured on both.
Vendor-published: Alibaba (Qwen) Anthropic ByteDance DeepSeek Google MiniMax Moonshot OpenAI Tencent Z.ai
Pricing
| GLM-5 | GLM-5.2 | Δ | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / 1M tokens | $1 | $1.4 | 0.71× |
| Output / 1M tokens | $3.2 | $4.4 | 0.73× |
| Cache read / 1M tokens | $0.2 | $0.26 | 0.77× |
Rates from the live catalog at build time; each model page carries the current card.
Where they sit - input price per 1M tokens across all 64 chat models on this billing unit (log scale)
Capabilities
Specs
| GLM-5 | GLM-5.2 | |
|---|---|---|
| Input modalities | text | text |
| Output modalities | text | text |
| Released | 2026-02-12 | 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 on GLM-5 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 · GLM-5.2
One prompt, both models - measured through the gateway
GLM-5 passed · 3 sentences
Enabling reasoning forces the model to perform multiple hidden steps to "think" through a problem, drastically increasing the volume of data processed per query compared to a standard response. Because our billing is directly tied to this processing volume, the additional computational work required for higher accuracy has proportionally doubled our consumption. Essentially, the spike reflects a trade-off where we are paying a higher variable cost to secure significantly better analytical outcomes.
out 1393 tok (+1308 thinking) latency 36.0 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 - countable), audience shaping (CFO register), and the hidden-thinking billing gap the token meters below expose.
GLM-5 passed · 8/8 cases
Here is the fixed code: ```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 bug stems from initializing `best` and `cur` to zero, which causes the function to count the number of *transitions* between adjacent elements rather than the total number of items in the run, resulting in a return value that is always one less than the actual length (reporting 0 for a single element and 1 for a pair). By initializing the counters to 1 and resetting `cur` to 1 when a streak breaks, the logic correctly counts the items themselves; adding an explicit check for an empty list ensures the function handles the zero-element edge case correctly.
out 2907 tok (+2694 thinking) latency 73.7 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 passed · 5/5 fields, guidance "withheld pending the Q4 close"
```json { "company": "Meridian Robotics", "quarter": "September quarter", "revenue_usd_m": 412, "growth_pct": 11, "guidance": "withheld pending the Q4 close" } ```
out 3620 tok (+3561 thinking) latency 91.8 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 passed · 119 words, 0 banned, 1 question
We are thrilled to introduce Global Prompt Caching, a powerful new capability within our API gateway designed to optimize your AI operations. By intelligently storing prompt responses across every supported provider, this feature drastically reduces latency and cuts operational costs. Instead of processing identical requests repeatedly, our system serves cached results instantly, ensuring consistent performance even during high-traffic periods. Why pay full price for repeated inference on the same inputs? This update gives developers fine-grained control over cache lifetimes and hit rates, allowing for predictable budgeting and faster application response times. You can activate this functionality directly in your dashboard settings today. Start maximizing your efficiency now and deliver a snappier experience to your end-users without unnecessary API expenditure.
out 715 tok (+571 thinking) latency 18.9 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",
# 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",
// 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",
# "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",
// 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")
// .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 or GLM-5.2?
GLM-5 is cheaper on input / 1m tokens ($1 vs $1.4, 1.4× apart). Other rows may point the other way - the table above carries the full card, and real cost depends on your mix.
Can I A/B test GLM-5 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 model-string change, so you can route a fraction of traffic to each and compare bills directly.
Do GLM-5 and GLM-5.2 support prompt caching?
Yes - both bill cached 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.