DeepSeek V4 Pro vs GLM 5.2

At a Glance

Compare
Intelligence, Cost, and Efficiency
IntelligenceHigher is better · MM Intelligence v4.4#19 of 5757.9 score · 2/3 sources · provisional · missing ARC-AGI-2 · full-core range 38.6–72.0UnrankedNot in the 57-model eligible cohort
CostLower is better · Published-token output estimate#10 of 27$0.054 per LiveBench caseUnrankedNot in the 27-model eligible cohort
EfficiencyHigher is better · MM Efficiency v1.9#11 of 2751.5 score · 2/3 sources · provisional · missing ARC-AGI-2 · full-core range 41.9–58.5UnrankedNot in the 27-model eligible cohort
Pricing and Limits
Input priceFrom · USD / 1M tokens$0.66DeepSeek ↗ · Sep 2, 2026$0.75Deepinfra ↗ · Oct 19, 2026
Output priceFrom · USD / 1M tokens$1.5441Openrouter ↗ · Aug 28, 2026$2.40Deepinfra ↗ · Oct 19, 2026
Context windowMaximum documented tokens1,049K1,049K
Model facts checkedAug 28, 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

All benchmark results →
BenchmarkDeepSeek-V4-ProGLM-5.2
LMArena Text Arenatext-2026-10-15-0ebb411abf00 · arena_rating · leader1,451.1699% of row best · rating · deepseek-v4-pro; 95% CI [1447.27741116, 1455.03943137]; votes 57594; rank 491,470.37100% of row best · rating · glm-5.2-max; 95% CI [1466.22224854, 1474.51957977]; votes 49820; rank 31
LiveBench2026-06-25-90f8d44da965 · overall · leader76.79100% of row best · percent · deepseek-v4-pro · 35,014 output tokens / case76.96100% of row best · percent · glm-5.2 · 23,463 output tokens / case
ToneBench2026-10-17-10-task-e9c76358afb2 · overall_score · unverified73.0796% of row best · points · DeepSeek V4 Pro (xhigh) · 17,924 output tokens / case75.76100% of row best · points · GLM-5.2 (high) · 11,138 output tokens / case
Overall ResultCounted from the protocol-matched rows above0 benchmark wins2 benchmark winsOverall lead

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

FieldDeepSeek-V4-ProGLM-5.2
DeveloperDeepSeekZ.ai
FamilyDeepseek V4 ProGlm 5 2
ModelDeepSeek-V4-ProGLM-5.2
VersionDeepSeek-V4-ProGLM-5.2
Lifecycleactiveactive
Released2026-04-24Unknown
Knowledge cutoffUnknownUnknown
Input modalitiesTextText
Output modalitiesTextText
Context window1,049K1,049K
Total parameters1.6T753.3B
Active parameters49BUnknown
Licensemitmit
Open weightsYesYes
API availableYesYes
Self-hostableYesYes
Provider accessDeepSeek (Standard), Deepinfra (Standard), Fireworks Ai (Standard), Hugging Face (Standard), Openrouter (Standard), Together Ai (Standard)Deepinfra (Standard), Fireworks Ai (Standard), Hugging Face (Standard), Openrouter (Standard), Together Ai (Standard)
Capabilitieschat, generation, reasoningchat, generation, reasoning, tools

DeepSeek V4 Pro Capabilities

chatgenerationreasoning
Serving providers6
Canonical IDdeepseek-ai/DeepSeek-V4-Pro

GLM 5.2 Capabilities

chatgenerationreasoningtools
Serving providers5
Canonical IDzai-org/GLM-5.2

Primary Evidence

Sources and Freshness

Questions

DeepSeek V4 Pro vs GLM 5.2 FAQs

Is DeepSeek V4 Pro or GLM 5.2 better for coding?+

This comparison does not currently contain a protocol-matched coding benchmark for both DeepSeek V4 Pro 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 or GLM 5.2?+

DeepSeek V4 Pro is $0.66 and GLM 5.2 is $0.75 per million tokens, so DeepSeek V4 Pro is cheaper on this metric. DeepSeek V4 Pro is $1.5441 and GLM 5.2 is $2.40 per million tokens, so DeepSeek V4 Pro is cheaper on this metric.

Which has a larger context window, DeepSeek V4 Pro 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 or GLM 5.2?+

GLM 5.2 leads the current overall benchmark count. The result uses 2 protocol-matched benchmarks from 2 publishers; it is not a universal quality score.

Can DeepSeek V4 Pro or GLM 5.2 be self-hosted?+

Both models have the same sourced self-hosting status: supported. DeepSeek V4 Pro is open weight; GLM 5.2 is open weight.

Can DeepSeek V4 Pro and GLM 5.2 understand images?+

DeepSeek V4 Pro 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 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 and GLM 5.2 support reasoning and tool use?+

DeepSeek V4 Pro: reasoning. GLM 5.2: reasoning and tool calling. Feature support does not establish relative quality.

Which is available from more inference providers, DeepSeek V4 Pro or GLM 5.2?+

DeepSeek V4 Pro has 6 sourced provider routes; GLM 5.2 has 5, so DeepSeek V4 Pro has broader tracked availability.

Which offers better value, DeepSeek V4 Pro 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.

Send Feedback