Granite 4.2 30B vs GLM 5.2
Model Markets Rankings
Intelligence, Cost, and Efficiency
| Ranking | Granite 4.2 30B | GLM-5.2 |
|---|---|---|
| CostLower is better · Published-token output estimate | UnrankedNot in the 36-model eligible cohort | #11 of 36$0.056 per LiveBench case |
Ranks come from the current complete eligible cohorts. Green highlights appear only when both models are ranked in the same metric. Missing required inputs remain unranked, and the three dimensions are not collapsed into an overall winner.
Benchmark Performance
Available Benchmarks
| Benchmark | Granite 4.2 30B | GLM-5.2 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text Arenatext-2026-09-01-011508720696 · arena_rating · leader | 1,362.5593% of row best · rating · granite-4.2-30b; 95% CI [1351.93384890, 1373.17607017]; votes 3287; rank 177 | 1,466.80100% of row best · rating · glm-5.2-max; 95% CI [1462.10739564, 1471.49788772]; votes 33758; rank 26 |
| Overall ResultCounted from the protocol-matched rows above | 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 | Granite 4.2 30B | GLM-5.2 |
|---|---|---|
| Developer | IBM | Z.ai |
| Family | Granite 4 2 | Glm 5 2 |
| Model | Granite 4.2 30B | GLM-5.2 |
| Version | Granite 4.2 30B | GLM-5.2 |
| Lifecycle | active | active |
| Released | 2026-08-25 | Unknown |
| Knowledge cutoff | Unknown | Unknown |
| Input modalities | Text | Text |
| Output modalities | Text | Text |
| Context window | 131K | 1,049K |
| Total parameters | 29.3B | 753.3B |
| Active parameters | Unknown | Unknown |
| License | apache-2.0 | mit |
| Open weights | Yes | Yes |
| API available | Yes | Yes |
| Self-hostable | Yes | Yes |
| Provider access | Deepinfra (Standard) | Deepinfra (Standard), Fireworks Ai (Standard), Hugging Face (Standard), Openrouter (Standard), Together Ai (Standard) |
| Capabilities | chat, generation, reasoning, structured_outputs, tools | chat, generation, reasoning, tools |
15 comparable fields · 9 material differences · Pair passes the primary-source comparison gate
Granite 4.2 30B Capabilities
GLM 5.2 Capabilities
Internal Comparison Graph
Related Comparisons
| A | Pair | B | Context |
|---|---|---|---|
| vs |  GPT-6 AstraOpenAI | cross-developer peerstext | |
Claude Fable 5.1Anthropic | vs | cross-developer peerstext | |
 Gemini 3.1 ProGoogle DeepMind | vs | cross-developer peerstext | |
 DeepSeek-V4-ProDeepSeek | vs | cross-developer peerstext | |
| vs | Grok 4.6xAI | cross-developer peerstext | |
| vs |  Qwen3.8-MaxQwen | cross-developer peerstext | |
| vs |  Kimi-K3Moonshot AI | cross-developer peerstext | |
 MiniMax-M3MiniMax | vs | cross-developer peerstext | |
| vs | GLM-5.3Z.ai | cross-developer peerstext | |
| vs |  Hy4 previewTencent | cross-developer peerstext | |
Seed 2.1 ProByteDance Seed | vs | cross-developer peerstext | |
| vs |  Mistral Large 3Mistral AI | cross-developer peerstext |
Primary Evidence
Sources and Freshness
Questions
Granite 4.2 30B vs GLM 5.2 FAQs
Is Granite 4.2 30B or GLM 5.2 better for coding?+
This comparison does not currently contain a protocol-matched coding benchmark for both Granite 4.2 30B and GLM 5.2, so Model Markets cannot name a coding leader from pricing, context size, or capability labels alone.
Which is cheaper, Granite 4.2 30B or GLM 5.2?+
Granite 4.2 30B is $0.16 and GLM 5.2 is $0.75 per million tokens, so Granite 4.2 30B is cheaper on this metric. Granite 4.2 30B is $0.65 and GLM 5.2 is $2.40 per million tokens, so Granite 4.2 30B is cheaper on this metric.
Which has a larger context window, Granite 4.2 30B or GLM 5.2?+
GLM 5.2 has the larger sourced context window. Granite 4.2 30B supports 131K and GLM 5.2 supports 1,049K.
Which performs better in benchmarks, Granite 4.2 30B or GLM 5.2?+
There is no overall benchmark winner: At least two independently verified, protocol-matched benchmarks are required for an overall winner.
Can Granite 4.2 30B or GLM 5.2 be self-hosted?+
Both models have the same recorded self-hosting status: supported. Granite 4.2 30B is open weight; GLM 5.2 is open weight.
Can Granite 4.2 30B and GLM 5.2 understand images?+
Granite 4.2 30B 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, Granite 4.2 30B or GLM 5.2?+
Neither has a larger sourced maximum output. Granite 4.2 30B is — and GLM 5.2 is —.
Do Granite 4.2 30B and GLM 5.2 support reasoning and tool use?+
Granite 4.2 30B: 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, Granite 4.2 30B or GLM 5.2?+
Granite 4.2 30B has 1 sourced provider route; GLM 5.2 has 5, so GLM 5.2 has broader tracked availability.
Which offers better value, Granite 4.2 30B 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.