新人 免费注册,送 10 次调用,最高 $1,无需绑卡。

GLM-5 vs GLM-5.2

vs

什么时候选哪个

这两个 Z.ai 模型在模态(文本进、文本出)、能力标志(聊天、代码、推理、工具、长上下文)、131072 最大输出 token 和可选思考上完全一致。区别有两处。上下文:2026-06-16 发布的 glm-5.2 支持 1000000 token,是 2026-02-12 的 glm-5 的 200000 的五倍,并新增了推理力度调节。价目表:glm-5 在两条 token 线上都低约 1.4 倍,输入 $1 对 $1.4,输出 $3.2 对 $4.4,缓存读取低 1.3 倍,$0.2 对 $0.26。整库或大语料提示选 glm-5.2;任务能装进 200000 token 且在意价格时留在 glm-5。

Benchmark 成绩

领先高于同类均值无更高分GLM-5115 / 522 / 52GLM-5.21725 / 801 / 80

18 项两边都有成绩。

GLM-5 GLM-5.2 其他参测模型 同类均值 ★ 没有模型得分更高
SWE-Bench Pro
55.1%
62.1%
Cybergym
43.2%
77.2%
Finance Agent v2
N/A
49.7%
Harvey Lab-AA
N/A
91%
GPQA Diamond
86%
91.2%
MCP-Atlas
69.8%
82.6%

供应商公布: Alibaba (Qwen) Anthropic ByteDance DeepSeek Google MiniMax Moonshot OpenAI Tencent Z.ai

价格

GLM-5 GLM-5.2 Δ
输入 / 1M token $1 $1.4 0.71×
输出 / 1M token $3.2 $4.4 0.73×
缓存读取 / 1M token $0.2 $0.26 0.77×

价格取自构建时的实时目录,最新价格见各模型页面。

两个模型所处的位置:全部 78 个按同一单位计费的聊天模型的每 1M token 输入价分布(对数刻度)

GLM-5 · $1 GLM-5.2 · $1.4
$0.05 · Qwen3 VL Flash $30 · GPT-5.4 Pro

能力

GLM-5 GLM-5.2
工具调用 是 是
思考控制 可配置 可配置
结构化输出 是 是
提示词缓存 隐式(自动) 隐式(自动)
缓存有效期 未公布 未公布
最小缓存前缀 未公布 未公布

规格

GLM-5 GLM-5.2
输入模态 文本 文本
输出模态 文本 文本
发布日期 2026-02-12 2026-06-16
上下文窗口 200K 1M
最大输出 131K 131K
思考参数 thinking.type
  • thinking.type
  • reasoning_effort
可选值
thinking.type
  • enabled
  • disabled
thinking.type
  • enabled
  • disabled
reasoning_effort
  • none
  • minimal
  • low
  • medium
  • high
  • xhigh
  • max (none and minimal skip thinking, low and medium map to high, xhigh maps to max)
默认值 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

规格照录自各供应商的文档;供应商没有公布的项目,对应的行直接省略,不做推断。 完整来源: GLM-5 · GLM-5.2

同一条提示词,两个模型,经网关实测

提示词 Explain to a CFO, in exactly three sentences, why our LLM bill doubled after we enabled reasoning. 检查 恰好 3 句

GLM-5 通过 · 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.

输出 1393 tok (+1308 思考) 延迟 36.0 s

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

指令遵循(恰好三句,数得出来)、受众适配(对 CFO 说话的口吻),以及下方 token 计数暴露出的隐藏思考计费差额。

提示词 This function is supposed to return the longest run of consecutive equal items, but callers report it is off by one on single-element inputs and misses runs that end at the last index. Fix it and explain the bug in one paragraph. 检查 修复通过测试

GLM-5 通过 · 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.

输出 2907 tok (+2694 思考) 延迟 73.7 s

GLM-5.2 未通过 · 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

修复是否真的正确(能运行)、解释的信息密度,以及在一个范围明确的任务上的 token 效率。

提示词 Extract a JSON object with fields {company, quarter, revenue_usd_m, growth_pct, guidance} from this text. Use null for anything not stated; add no other fields. 检查 合法 JSON,严格符合 schema

GLM-5 通过 · 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" } ```

输出 3620 tok (+3561 思考) 延迟 91.8 s

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

是否严守 schema(不臆造字段)、能否顶住幻觉压力(原文明说暂不给出 guidance),以及结构化输出路径的差异。

提示词 Write a 120-word product announcement for an API gateway feature that caches prompts across providers. Forbidden words: "seamless", "unlock", "game-changer", "revolutionize", "empower". Exactly one sentence must be a question. 检查 120 词,0 个禁用词

GLM-5 通过 · 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.

输出 715 tok (+571 思考) 延迟 18.9 s

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

是否守住约束(字数预算、禁用词表、只能有一个问句)、文风特征,以及长度控制。

改一行代码就能在两个模型之间切换

下方每个标签页里都有两个模型 ID,高亮的那两行是唯一要改的地方。端点不变,API key 不变,请求结构也不变。

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",  # 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)

获取 API key →

常见问题

GLM-5 和 GLM-5.2 哪个更便宜?

按「输入 / 1M token」算,GLM-5 更便宜($1 对 $1.4,相差 1.4×)。其他计费项的结论可能相反,完整价格见上方表格,实际成本取决于你的用量构成。

不用分别集成两次,就能对 GLM-5 和 GLM-5.2 做 A/B 测试吗?

可以。两个模型走同一个 OpenAI 兼容端点,用同一个 API key,切换时只要改一行里的模型名,所以可以给两个模型各分一部分流量,直接对比账单。

GLM-5 和 GLM-5.2 支持提示词缓存吗?

支持。两个模型的缓存读取价都低于各自的输入价,所以前缀能反复命中缓存的负载,实际成本会比按官网价估算的低。具体的缓存读取价见上方价格表。

相关对比

我们的实测研究