DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 vs GLM 5.2
At a Glance
| Compare |  DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813DeepSeek |  GLM 5.2Z.ai |
|---|---|---|
| Pricing and Limits | ||
| Input priceFrom · USD / 1M tokens | $1.30Deepinfra ↗ · Oct 20, 2026 | $0.75Deepinfra ↗ · Oct 20, 2026 |
| Output priceFrom · USD / 1M tokens | $2.60Deepinfra ↗ · Oct 20, 2026 | $2.40Deepinfra ↗ · Oct 20, 2026 |
| Context windowMaximum documented tokens | 1,049K | 1,049K |
| Model facts checked | Sep 3, 2026View model evidence → | Aug 28, 2026View model evidence → |
Token prices are the lowest available sourced USD rates; input and output may use different providers. Cost ranking estimates output spend on LiveBench, not a full request bill. Ranking methodology →
Available Benchmarks
| Benchmark | DeepSeek-V4-Pro-0813 | GLM-5.2 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text Arenatext-2026-10-15-a64ca3b12b6e · arena_rating · leader | 1,445.5598% of row best · rating · deepseek-v4-pro-high-20260813; 95% CI [1438.98161909, 1452.11869256]; votes 9800; rank 61 | 1,470.37100% of row best · rating · glm-5.2-max; 95% CI [1466.22224854, 1474.51957977]; votes 49820; rank 31 |
| LiveBench2026-06-25-90f8d44da965 · overall · leader | 81.91100% of row best · percent · deepseek-v4-pro-0813 · 36,339 output tokens / case | 76.9694% of row best · percent · glm-5.2 · 23,463 output tokens / case |
| ToneBench2026-10-17-10-task-e9c76358afb2 · overall_score · unverified | 80.12100% of row best · points · DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 (max) · 34,473 output tokens / case | 75.7695% of row best · points · GLM-5.2 (high) · 11,138 output tokens / case |
| Overall ResultCounted from the protocol-matched rows above | 1 benchmark winNo overall winner | 1 benchmark winNo overall winner |
Third-party benchmark Only like-for-like primary-publisher results are shown; raw scores, relative scores, configuration, and token spend remain visible.
Side-by-Side Facts
| Field | DeepSeek-V4-Pro-0813 | GLM-5.2 |
|---|---|---|
| Developer | DeepSeek | Z.ai |
| Family | Deepseek V4 Pro | Glm 5 2 |
| Model | DeepSeek-V4-Pro-0813 | GLM-5.2 |
| Version | DeepSeek-V4-Pro-0813 | GLM-5.2 |
| Lifecycle | active | active |
| Released | 2026-08-13 | Unknown |
| Knowledge cutoff | Unknown | Unknown |
| Input modalities | Text | Text |
| Output modalities | Text | Text |
| Context window | 1,049K | 1,049K |
| Total parameters | 1.6T | 753.3B |
| Active parameters | 49B | Unknown |
| License | mit | mit |
| Open weights | Yes | Yes |
| API available | Yes | Yes |
| Self-hostable | Yes | Yes |
| Provider access | Deepinfra (Standard), Fireworks Ai (Standard), Together Ai (Standard) | Deepinfra (Standard), Fireworks Ai (Standard), Hugging Face (Standard), Openrouter (Standard), Together Ai (Standard) |
| Capabilities | agents, chat, coding, generation, reasoning, tools | chat, generation, reasoning, tools |
DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 Capabilities
GLM 5.2 Capabilities
Related Comparisons
All text comparisons →| A | Pair | B | Context |
|---|---|---|---|
DeepSeek-V4-Pro-0813DeepSeek | vs |  Qwen3.8-MaxQwen | cross-developer peerstext |
DeepSeek-V4-Pro-0813DeepSeek | vs |  Kimi-K3Moonshot AI | cross-developer peerstext |
DeepSeek-V4-Pro-0813DeepSeek | vs | GLM-5.3Z.ai | cross-developer peerstext |
DeepSeek-V4-ProDeepSeek | vs | DeepSeek-V4-Pro-0813DeepSeek | family variantstext |
DeepSeek-V4-Pro-0813DeepSeek | vs | DeepSeek-V4-Pro-BaseDeepSeek | family variantstext |
DeepSeek-V4-FlashDeepSeek | vs | DeepSeek-V4-Pro-0813DeepSeek | family variantstext |
DeepSeek-V4-Flash-Vision-ExpDeepSeek | vs | DeepSeek-V4-Pro-0813DeepSeek | family variantstext |
DeepSeek-V4-Pro-0813DeepSeek | vs | Kimi K2.7 CodeMoonshot AI | cross-developer peerstext |
DeepSeek-V4-Pro-0813DeepSeek | vs | cross-developer peerstext | |
DeepSeek-V4-Pro-0813DeepSeek | vs | cross-developer peerstext |
Primary Evidence
Sources and Freshness
Questions
DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 vs GLM 5.2 FAQs
Is DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 or GLM 5.2 better for coding?+
This comparison does not currently contain a protocol-matched coding benchmark for both DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 and GLM 5.2, so Model Markets cannot name a coding leader from pricing, context size, or capability labels alone.
Which is cheaper, DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 or GLM 5.2?+
DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 is $1.30 and GLM 5.2 is $0.75 per million tokens, so GLM 5.2 is cheaper on this metric. DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 is $2.60 and GLM 5.2 is $2.40 per million tokens, so GLM 5.2 is cheaper on this metric.
Which has a larger context window, DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 or GLM 5.2?+
Both models have the same sourced context window: 1,048,576 tokens each.
Which performs better in benchmarks, DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 or GLM 5.2?+
There is no overall benchmark winner: The verified common benchmarks do not produce a majority winner.
Can DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 or GLM 5.2 be self-hosted?+
Both models have the same sourced self-hosting status: supported. DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 is open weight; GLM 5.2 is open weight.
Can DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 and GLM 5.2 understand images?+
DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 is not documented with image input; GLM 5.2 is not documented with image input. This reflects supported input modalities, not vision quality.
Which can generate longer answers, DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 or GLM 5.2?+
Neither model has a sourced maximum output in this comparison, so a larger limit cannot be determined.
Do DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 and GLM 5.2 support reasoning and tool use?+
DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813: reasoning and tool calling. GLM 5.2: reasoning and tool calling. Feature support does not establish relative quality.
Which is available from more inference providers, DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 or GLM 5.2?+
DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 has 3 sourced provider routes; GLM 5.2 has 5, so GLM 5.2 has broader tracked availability.
Which offers better value, DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 or GLM 5.2?+
There is no universal value winner. Compare the input and output prices above with the matched benchmark result for your workload: cheaper tokens can be offset by different quality, token usage, latency, or provider availability.