GLM-5.2 vs Qwen3.8 Max
何时使用哪一个 — 经过整理的结论，而非基准测试表格
两者都是文本输出的长上下文推理模型，最大输出同为 131072 token，所以真正的差别是模态和价格：glm-5.2 只收文本，输入 $0.77、输出 $2.42；qwen3.8-max 还接受图像，输入 $2、输出 $6，分别贵约 2.6 倍和 2.5 倍，缓存读取 $0.25 对 $0.143。管线里要喂截图、图表或扫描页时选 qwen3.8-max；纯文本的对话、代码和工具工作选 glm-5.2——按 token 更便宜，窗口略大（1000000 token），思考还能关闭。
定价
| GLM-5.2 | Qwen3.8 Max | Δ | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 输入 / 1M tokens | $0.77 | $2 | 0.39× |
| 输出 / 1M tokens | $2.42 | $6 | 0.4× |
| 缓存读取 / 1M tokens | $0.143 | $0.25 | 0.57× |
| 缓存写入 | — | 1.25x | — |
费率取自构建时的实时目录；每个模型页面均附有当前的费率卡。
它们的位置 — 以该计费单位计费的所有 63 个 聊天 模型的 每 1M token 的输入价格（对数刻度）
能力
| GLM-5.2 | Qwen3.8 Max | |
|---|---|---|
| 工具使用 | 是 | 是 |
| 思考控制 | 可配置 | 是 —— 厂商未公布调节参数 |
| 结构化输出 | 是 | 是 |
| 提示词缓存 | 隐式（自动） | 隐式 + 显式 |
| 缓存生存时间 | 未公开 | explicit: 5m, reset on hit |
| 最小缓存前缀 | 未公开 | 1024 个 token |
规格
| GLM-5.2 | Qwen3.8 Max | |
|---|---|---|
| 输入模态 | 文本 | 文本 图像 |
| 输出模态 | 文本 | 文本 |
| 发布日期 | 2026-06-16 | 2026-08-03 |
| 上下文窗口 | 1M | 984K |
| 最大输出 | 131K | 131K |
| 思考参数 |
| — |
| 允许的值 | thinking.type
reasoning_effort
| — |
| 默认值 | enabled, with reasoning_effort at max: the only GLM with an effort dial, and it defaults to the top of it | — |
规格转录自各供应商的文档；若供应商未发布某项数据，则直接省略该行，而非进行推断。 完整来源： GLM-5.2 · Qwen3.8 Max
单个 Prompt，两个模型 —— 通过网关实测
GLM-5.2 通过 · 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.
输出 1223 tok (+1138 思考) 延迟 17.1 s
Qwen3.8 Max 通过 · 3 sentences
Enabling reasoning makes the model produce additional hidden steps before responding, and those tokens are billable. It also tends to lengthen each interaction because the model works through more possibilities before settling on an answer. Therefore, the bill doubled mainly due to higher compute and token usage per request, not necessarily because the number of requests doubled.
输出 378 tok (+305 思考) 延迟 8.6 s
指令遵循（恰好三句，可数）、受众适配（面向 CFO 的语气），以及下方 token 计量所暴露的隐藏思考计费缺口。
GLM-5.2 未命中 · 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 […]
输出 4097 tok (+4036 思考) 延迟 58.4 s
Qwen3.8 Max 通过 · 8/8 cases
```python def longest_run(xs): if not xs: return 0 best = cur = 1 for i in range(1, len(xs)): if xs[i] == xs[i - 1]: cur += 1 else: cur = 1 best = max(best, cur) return best ``` The bug is that the original code starts `best` and `cur` at `0`, so it counts adjacent equal *transitions* rather than the number of items in the run. A run of length `n` has only `n - 1` equal-neighbor transitions, so single-element inputs return `0`, and runs that reach the end are undercounted by one. Initializing the current run to `1` for the first element, resetting it to `1` on a break, and updating `best` from that count fixes the off-by-one.
输出 1616 tok (+1411 思考) 延迟 34.7 s
修复是否真的正确（可运行）、解释的信息密度，以及在一个边界明确的任务上的 token 效率。
GLM-5.2 通过 · 5/5 fields, guidance "withheld"
```json { "company": "Meridian Robotics", "quarter": "September quarter", "revenue_usd_m": 412, "growth_pct": 11, "guidance": "withheld" } ```
输出 1947 tok (+1893 思考) 延迟 30.9 s
Qwen3.8 Max 通过 · 5/5 fields, guidance null
{ "company": "Meridian Robotics", "quarter": "September quarter", "revenue_usd_m": 412, "growth_pct": 11, "guidance": null }
输出 1199 tok (+1141 思考) 延迟 24.4 s
schema 服从度（不臆造字段）、幻觉压力（guidance 明确被暂缓给出），以及结构化输出路径的差异。
GLM-5.2 通过 · 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.
输出 11125 tok (+10984 思考) 延迟 114.8 s
Qwen3.8 Max 通过 · 120 words, 0 banned, 1 question
Today, our API gateway adds prompt caching across major model providers. It stores prompts and responses in one fast cache layer. Teams can lower token spend, reduce latency, and repeat reliable answers. The feature supports OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, and Mistral through one configuration. You can set retention rules, scope access, and invalidate entries quickly. How does your team maintain consistent results during provider outages? Approved cached responses keep applications stable while fallback routes recover. The dashboard shows hit rates, savings, latency, and provider usage. Engineers receive audit trails for every cached prompt, enabling safer testing. Product managers can compare cost trends before and after cache adoption. Start with a small route, then safely expand caching to production traffic right now.
输出 2744 tok (+2591 思考) 延迟 46.3 s
约束服从度（字数预算、禁用词表、唯一的那句问句）、文风指纹，以及长度控制。
只需一行代码即可在它们之间切换
两个 ID 都包含在下方的每个选项卡中 — 高亮显示的两行是唯一的修改。相同的端点，相同的密钥，相同的请求结构。
from openai import OpenAI
client = OpenAI(
base_url="https://synthorai.io/v1",
api_key="sk-syn-...",
)
resp = client.chat.completions.create(
model="glm-5.2",
# model="qwen3.8-max", # 取消注释此行，注释上一行
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-5.2",
// model: "qwen3.8-max", // 取消注释此行，注释上一行
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-5.2",
# "model": "qwen3.8-max", # 取消注释此行，注释上一行
"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-5.2",
// Model: "qwen3.8-max", // 取消注释此行，注释上一行
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-5.2")
// .model("qwen3.8-max") // 取消注释此行，注释上一行
.addUserMessage("Summarize this diff")
.reasoningEffort(ReasoningEffort.MEDIUM)
.build());
System.out.println(resp.choices().get(0).message().content().orElse(""));常见问题
GLM-5.2 和 Qwen3.8 Max 哪个更便宜？
在 输入 / 1m tokens 方面，GLM-5.2 更便宜（$0.77 对比 $2，相差 2.6×）。其他行可能得出相反的结论——上方表格提供了完整信息，实际成本取决于你的组合使用情况。
我可以在不进行两次集成的情况下，对 GLM-5.2 和 Qwen3.8 Max 进行 A/B 测试吗？
可以。两者均通过同一个兼容 OpenAI 的端点提供服务，并使用同一把 API 密钥——切换只需更改一行模型字符串，因此你可以将一部分流量路由到各个模型并直接比较账单。
GLM-5.2 和 Qwen3.8 Max 支持提示词缓存吗？
是的 —— 两者对缓存读取的计费均低于其输入费率，因此热前缀工作负载的成本低于标价。准确的缓存读取行位于上方的定价表中。