GLM-5.2 vs GLM-5.3
Benchmark Performance
Available Benchmarks
| Benchmark | GLM-5.2 | GLM-5.3 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text Arenatext-2026-09-01-011508720696 · arena_rating · statistical tie | 1,466.8099% of row best · rating · glm-5.2-max; 95% CI [1462.10739564, 1471.49788772]; votes 33758; rank 26 | 1,474.49100% of row best · rating · glm-5.3-max; 95% CI [1467.12172899, 1481.86064533]; votes 7401; rank 18 |
| LiveBench2026-06-25 · overall · leader | 76.9697% of row best · percent · glm-5.2 · 23,463 output tokens / case | 79.15100% of row best · percent · glm-5.3 · 62,090 output tokens / case |
| Overall ResultCounted from the protocol-matched rows above · 1 tie | 0 benchmark wins | 1 benchmark winOverall lead |
Third-party benchmark Only like-for-like primary-publisher results are shown; raw scores, relative scores, configuration, and token spend remain visible.
Technical Differences
Side-by-Side Facts
| Field | GLM-5.2 | GLM-5.3 |
|---|---|---|
| Developer | Z.ai | Z.ai |
| Family | Glm 5 2 | Glm 5 3 |
| Model | GLM-5.2 | GLM-5.3 |
| Version | GLM-5.2 | GLM-5.3 |
| Lifecycle | active | active |
| Released | Unknown | Unknown |
| Knowledge cutoff | Unknown | Unknown |
| Input modalities | Text | Text |
| Output modalities | Text | Text |
| Context window | 1,048,576 | 1,000,000 |
| Total parameters | 753,329,940,480 | Unknown |
| Active parameters | Unknown | Unknown |
| License | mit | Unknown |
| Open weights | Yes | No |
| API available | Yes | Yes |
| Self-hostable | Yes | No |
| Provider access | Deepinfra (Standard), Openrouter (Standard) | Deepinfra (Standard), Z.ai (Standard) |
| Capabilities | chat, generation, reasoning, tools | agents, chat, reasoning, structured_outputs, tools |
13 comparable fields · 8 material differences · Pair passes the primary-source comparison gate
GLM-5.2 Capabilities
GLM-5.3 Capabilities
Internal Comparison Graph
Related Comparisons
| A | Pair | B | Context |
|---|---|---|---|
 Hy4 previewTencent | vs |  GLM-5.3Z.ai | cross-developer peerstext |
 Qwen3.7-PlusQwen | vs | GLM-5.3Z.ai | cross-developer peerstext |
GLM-5.3Z.ai | vs | GLM-5.3-FlashZ.ai | family variantstext |
GLM-5Z.ai | vs | GLM-5.2Z.ai | family variantstext |
GLM-5.1Z.ai | vs | GLM-5.2Z.ai | family variantstext |
GLM-5Z.ai | vs | GLM-5.3Z.ai | family variantstext |
GLM-5.1Z.ai | vs | GLM-5.3Z.ai | family variantstext |
GLM-5.2Z.ai | vs | GLM-5.3-FlashZ.ai | family variantstext |
 ERNIE 5.1Baidu | vs | GLM-5.3Z.ai | cross-developer peerstext |
ERNIE X1.1Baidu | vs | GLM-5.3Z.ai | cross-developer peerstext |
 Sonar Deep ResearchPerplexity | vs | GLM-5.3Z.ai | cross-developer peerstext |
Sonar Reasoning ProPerplexity | vs | GLM-5.3Z.ai | cross-developer peerstext |
Primary Evidence
Sources and Freshness
Questions
GLM-5.2 vs GLM-5.3 FAQs
Is GLM-5.2 or GLM-5.3 better for coding?+
This comparison does not currently contain a protocol-matched coding benchmark for both GLM-5.2 and GLM-5.3, so Model Markets cannot name a coding leader from pricing, context size, or capability labels alone.
Which is cheaper, GLM-5.2 or GLM-5.3?+
GLM-5.2 is $0.75 and GLM-5.3 is $1.20 per million tokens, so GLM-5.2 is cheaper on this metric. GLM-5.2 is $2.40 and GLM-5.3 is $4.00 per million tokens, so GLM-5.2 is cheaper on this metric.
Which has a larger context window, GLM-5.2 or GLM-5.3?+
GLM-5.2 has the larger sourced context window. GLM-5.2 supports 1,048,576 and GLM-5.3 supports 1,000,000.
Which performs better in benchmarks, GLM-5.2 or GLM-5.3?+
There is no overall benchmark winner: An overall winner requires at least two decisive benchmarks from at least two original publishers.
Can GLM-5.2 or GLM-5.3 be self-hosted?+
GLM-5.2 is the only model in this pair currently marked as self-hostable. GLM-5.2 is open weight; GLM-5.3 is not marked open weight.
Can GLM-5.2 and GLM-5.3 understand images?+
GLM-5.2 is not documented with image input; GLM-5.3 is not documented with image input. This reflects supported input modalities, not vision quality.
Which can generate longer answers, GLM-5.2 or GLM-5.3?+
Neither has a larger sourced maximum output. GLM-5.2 is — and GLM-5.3 is 131,072.
Do GLM-5.2 and GLM-5.3 support reasoning and tool use?+
GLM-5.2: reasoning and tool calling. GLM-5.3: reasoning and tool calling. Feature support does not establish relative quality.
Which is available from more inference providers, GLM-5.2 or GLM-5.3?+
GLM-5.2 has 2 sourced provider routes; GLM-5.3 has 2, a tie.
Which offers better value, GLM-5.2 or GLM-5.3?+
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.