← Back to Model Hub/SIDE-BY-SIDE REVIEW
SHARE THIS:

GLM 5.2 vs DeepSeek V3.1

Detailed technical comparison between GLM 5.2 (Zhipu AI) and DeepSeek V3.1 (DeepSeek). Review live API token pricing, context window capabilities, time-to-first-token latency, and verified benchmark scores side-by-side.

⚡ Executive Summary & Verdict

Comparison Snapshot

GLM 5.2: 6 WinsvsDeepSeek V3.1: 0 Wins
Context Leader

GLM 5.2

1,048,576 tokens
Agentic Tool-Calling

Tie

Equal Capability
Lowest Latency (TTFT)

Tie

Equal Speed
Input Price Leader

DeepSeek V3.1

$0.25 / MTok
Zhipu AIactive

GLM 5.2

GLM 5.2 is a large-scale reasoning model from Z.ai. It supports text input and output with a 1M-token context window, and is suited for long-horizon agent workflows, project-level software engineering,...

View GLM 5.2 Full Specs →
DeepSeekactive

DeepSeek V3.1

DeepSeek-V3.1 is a large hybrid reasoning model (671B parameters, 37B active) that supports both thinking and non-thinking modes via prompt templates. It extends the DeepSeek-V3 base with a two-phase long-context...

View DeepSeek V3.1 Full Specs →

Technical Specifications

🏆 = Superior Spec
SpecificationGLM 5.2DeepSeek V3.1
ProviderZhipu AIDeepSeek
Context Window1,048,576 tokens🏆163,840 tokens
Agent SuitabilityNot yet benchmarkedNot yet benchmarked
Time to First Token (TTFT)No public TTFT dataNo public TTFT data
Deployment Modelmanaged apiself hostable
Production StabilityBeta Access (est.)Stable GA (est.)
API AvailableYesYes
Released Date2026-06-162025-08-21

API Pricing Comparison

Input Price per Million Tokens

GLM 5.2

$0.80

DeepSeek V3.1

$0.25

Output Price per Million Tokens

GLM 5.2

$2.50

DeepSeek V3.1

$0.95

💡 Cost Ratio: DeepSeek V3.1 is 3.2x cheaper per input token than GLM 5.2.

Want to test both models live?

Run side-by-side prompt benchmarks in our dynamic multi-model Sandbox. Compare execution speeds, latency metrics, and compute actual costs in real-time.

Open Live Sandbox Playground →

Benchmark Performance Metrics

Standardized Scores (0–100%)

Scores show verified raw accuracy percentages across standardized AI evaluation suites. Higher bars indicate superior performance in that domain.

MMLUGeneral knowledge & multi-task understanding
89.5%vs80.0%+9.5% GLM 5.2
GLM 5.2 🏆
DeepSeek V3.1
HumanEvalPython coding & logic synthesis
91.2%vs78.2%+13.0% GLM 5.2
GLM 5.2 🏆
DeepSeek V3.1
MATHComplex mathematical problem solving
80.5%vs55.4%+25.1% GLM 5.2
GLM 5.2 🏆
DeepSeek V3.1
GPQAGraduate-level expert reasoning
53.5%vs40.8%+12.7% GLM 5.2
GLM 5.2 🏆
DeepSeek V3.1
HellaSwagCommonsense reasoning and inference
89.8%vs83.0%+6.8% GLM 5.2
GLM 5.2 🏆
DeepSeek V3.1
MT-BenchMulti-turn conversation flow quality
9.3%vs8.6%+0.7% GLM 5.2
GLM 5.2 🏆
DeepSeek V3.1

GLM 5.2 Quirks & Gotchas

No developer gotchas reported.

DeepSeek V3.1 Quirks & Gotchas

No developer gotchas reported.

Explore Other Popular Comparisons

SIDE-BY-SIDE REVIEW

GLM 5.2 vs Nano Banana 2 (Gemini 3.1 Flash Image)

Compare context windows, live API token prices, and benchmark scores.

SIDE-BY-SIDE REVIEW

GLM 5.2 vs GLM 4.7 Flash

Compare context windows, live API token prices, and benchmark scores.

SIDE-BY-SIDE REVIEW

GLM 5.2 vs Nemotron 3 Ultra

Compare context windows, live API token prices, and benchmark scores.

SIDE-BY-SIDE REVIEW

GLM 5.2 vs GPT-5.2-Codex

Compare context windows, live API token prices, and benchmark scores.

SIDE-BY-SIDE REVIEW

GLM 5.2 vs Mistral Medium 3.1

Compare context windows, live API token prices, and benchmark scores.

SIDE-BY-SIDE REVIEW

GLM 5.2 vs Kimi K3

Compare context windows, live API token prices, and benchmark scores.