Pairwise benchmark snapshot · Aug 17, 2026
In this head-to-head showdown, DeepSeek V4 Pro delivers higher overall intelligence and human-preferred responses (Elo 1,536 vs 1,492), while DeepSeek V4 Pro leads in SWE-bench software engineering benchmarks (71.6%), while GLM-5.2 is more budget-friendly at $3.74/1M per 1M output tokens. Review the complete breakdown below to determine which model best fits your performance and budget requirements.
9 direct benchmark disciplines evaluated across capability, speed, and cost
Open-weight-adjacent DeepSeek flagship. High reasoning density per dollar.
Zhipu flagship. Strong Chinese/English coding and agents.
Currently comparing DeepSeek V4 Pro vs GLM-5.2. Alternative family tiers available.
Simulate accuracy gains vs added response time & token cost
Reasoning models “think before answering” by generating internal reasoning tokens. Higher effort improves math, coding, and logic accuracy, but increases response delay and token costs.
Δ 44 Arena Elo pts
84 tok/s
$3.74 / 1M output
Relative percentile scores computed across all active models in the benchmark catalog.
Comparing top Western standard models with China's leading frontier rival across 6 skill dimensions. Tap any spoke or dot to inspect.
Category wins across reasoning intelligence, generation speed, and token cost.
Preference Elo, Coding proficiency, SWE-bench & LiveBench accuracy
Generation throughput and time to first token responsiveness
Cost per million tokens and max context window length
| Benchmark | DeepSeek V4 Pro | GLM-5.2 | Advantage Delta |
|---|---|---|---|
| Preference Elo | +44 | ||
| Coding Elo | +40 | ||
| LiveBench | +4.9% | ||
| SWE-bench | +2.3% | ||
| GPQA Diamond | +4.5% | ||
| Time to first token | +140 ms | ||
| Output speed | 70 tok/s | 84 tok/s | +14 tok/s |
| Input price | $1.32/1M | $1.19/1M | +$0.13/1M |
| Output price | $3.96/1M | $3.74/1M | +$0.22/1M |
| Context window | — |
Simulate monthly production API costs in USD (US Dollar).
GLM-5.2 is estimated to save $7.85/month ($94/year).
Higher SWE-bench (71.6%).
Lower output list price ($3.74/1M).
Lower TTFT (270 ms).
Larger window (1M).
GLM-5.2 is the side marked multimodal in the catalog.
| Target Workload | Recommended Pick | Evaluation Rationale |
|---|---|---|
| Repo / coding agents | DeepSeek V4 Pro | Higher SWE-bench (71.6%). |
| High-volume chat | GLM-5.2 | Lower output list price ($3.74/1M). |
| Voice / low-latency UI | GLM-5.2 | Lower TTFT (270 ms). |
| Long-document RAG | DeepSeek V4 Pro | Larger window (1M). |
| Screenshots / vision | GLM-5.2 | GLM-5.2 is the side marked multimodal in the catalog. |
GLM-5.2 undercuts GLM 5V Turbo by 74.2% on input at $0.31/1M, with 1,492 Elo and 69.3% SWE-bench in dated 2026 snapshots.
Strong Chinese/English coding. 5.3 is the new row; 5.2 stays so the delta is visible.
Top DeepSeek vs top Anthropic Elo. Usually V4 Pro vs Opus 5. License and invoice decide as much as Elo.
2026-06 open-weight-adjacent flagship. The usual cheap-vs-Claude question starts here.
No comments posted on this matchup yet. Be the first to share an evaluation note!
Dynamic OpenGraph banner generated at /compare/deepseek-v4-pro-vs-glm-5-2/opengraph-image
Verified Head-to-Head Telemetry
news · Aug 16, 2026
GLM-5.2 vs GLM 5V Turbo Price and SWE-bench 2026
launch · Jun 18, 2026
GLM-5.2 remains the prior Zhipu flagship for upgrade pairs
compare · Jun 13, 2026
DeepSeek vs Claude: the cheap-versus-frontier question, remapped
launch · Jun 12, 2026
DeepSeek V4 Pro: high reasoning density per dollar