Skip to content
Rival
How it worksPrivacyTerms
Explore all of Rival

Explore

  • Compare Models
  • All Models
  • Image Comparison
  • Audio Comparison
  • Image Generation
  • Best AI For...
  • Arena
  • API Pricing
  • Challenges

Discover

  • SubjectiveBench
  • Research
  • Research downloads
  • Rival Kits
  • Find your AI taste
  • UI Glow-Up
  • VoiceLock
  • Cost Cutter
  • Agent skills
  • Benchmarks vs Vibes
  • Brief
  • Jailbreak
  • Model Updates
  • Provider Status
  • AI Creators

Connect

  • Methodology
  • Advertise
  • Partnerships
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms
  • RSS Feed
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. Compare
  4. /
  5. GLM 5.2vsGLM 5.3
Updated Aug 2026

GLM 5.2vsGLM 5.3

GLM 5.3 is cheaper than GLM 5.2 at $0.6538/M vs $1.4/M input tokens.

GLM 5.2 and GLM 5.3 compared across 13 shared prompts
SpecGLM 5.2GLM 5.3
Input price$1.4/M tokens$0.6538/M tokens
Output price$4.4/M tokens$2.0548/M tokens
Context window1.0M tokens1.3M tokens
WeightsOpenOpen
Free API (OpenRouter)Yes (1 provider)No
ReleasedJun 2026Aug 2026
Side by side

Same prompt, both answers

Opening lines from 6 of the 13 prompts both answered. Formatting stripped, words untouched.

Beginner's Longevity Plan

Outline a simple, actionable 1-month plan for someone starting their journey towards better health and longevity. Focus on 3 key areas…

GLM 5.2619 words
Here is a simple, actionable 1-month plan designed to ease you into better health and longevity. By focusing on just three foundational pillars—Nutrition, Movement, and Sleep—you can build sustainable habits without feeling overwhelmed. The goal of this plan is consistency over intensity.
Read the full answer
GLM 5.3415 words
1-Month Beginner Health & Longevity Plan Week 1: Foundation & Awareness Goal: Establish baselines, not perfection 🥗 Diet Track what you currently eat for 3 days (no judging—just observe) Drink a glass of water upon waking each morning Add ONE vegetable to one meal daily 🏃 Exercise Walk 15 minutes daily (any pace, any…
Read the full answer

Historical Counterfactual Analysis

If the transistor had been invented in 1920 instead of 1947, trace the likely technological, economic, and geopolitical implications through…

GLM 5.21,053 words
If the transistor had been invented in 1920—a full 27 years before its historical debut at Bell Labs—the 20th century would have been radically transformed. The transition from mechanical and vacuum-tube technology to solid-state electronics would have accelerated the Information Age by nearly three decades.
Read the full answer
GLM 5.31,346 words
If the Transistor Had Arrived in 1920 The Premise: Why 1920 Was Nearly Impossible Before tracing effects, note the counterfactual requires heroic assumptions. The transistor depended on quantum mechanics (solid-state band theory, ~1928-1933), ultrapure semiconductor materials (zone refining, 1950s), and wartime radar…
Read the full answer

Startup Pitch Teardown

Here's a pitch deck summary for a startup called "MindMeld AI": **Slide 1 - Vision:** "We're building the future of human-AI collaboration.…

GLM 5.2661 words
Here are the three weakest claims in the MindMeld AI pitch deck, along with the reasoning for why they fail to hold up to investor scrutiny and concrete ways to fix them. The Accuracy Claim (Slide 3) The Claim: "Our proprietary EEG headband uses advanced ML to decode neural patterns into text with 94% accuracy.
Read the full answer
GLM 5.3585 words
3 Weakest Claims in the MindMeld AI Pitch "Reads your brainwaves to predict what you want to type before you think it" Why it's weak: This claim is neurologically incoherent. EEG sensors detect electrical activity on the scalp after neural firing occurs — you cannot decode intent "before" the brain generates it.
Read the full answer

Ethical Dilemma with Stakeholders

You're the CEO of a pharmaceutical company. Your best-selling drug ($2B annual revenue, used by 4 million patients for chronic pain) has…

GLM 5.21,050 words
As the CEO, my guiding principle in this crisis is absolute: Patient safety and regulatory compliance override short-term financial optics. Concealing a serious side effect like liver failure is not just an ethical failure; it is a criminal violation of FDA regulations and securities fraud.
Read the full answer
GLM 5.31,143 words
The Core Decision (Made Before Hour 1) The side effect is real, serious, and known to me now. Patients are currently taking this drug without informed consent about a ~1-in-8,000 liver failure risk. Everything else — stock price, board pressure, legal exposure — is secondary.
Read the full answer

Simple 7-Ingredient Recipe

Create a simple recipe for a delicious dish (sweet or savory) using only 7 common pantry ingredients. Include a creative name for the dish…

GLM 5.2250 words
Dish Name: Midnight Magic Peanut Noodles Estimated Time: Prep Time: 5 minutes Cook Time: 10 minutes Total Time: 15 minutes Ingredients (7 Common Pantry Staples): Spaghetti (or any long pasta you have on hand) Creamy peanut butter Soy sauce Rice vinegar Honey Garlic powder Crushed red pepper flakes Instructions: Cook…
Read the full answer
GLM 5.3210 words
Golden Pantry Fried Rice Total Time: 20 minutes (5 min prep, 15 min cook) Ingredients (7 pantry staples) Cooked white rice (day-old is best) Eggs Soy sauce Garlic (minced or garlic powder) Frozen peas and carrots Canned corn Vegetable oil Instructions Prep (5 min): Break up cold rice with a fork. Drain the corn.
Read the full answer

Debug This Architecture

Here's the architecture for a real-time collaborative document editor (like Google Docs): **System Overview:** - Frontend: React SPA with…

GLM 5.2904 words
This architecture has several critical flaws that would prevent it from functioning as a reliable, real-time collaborative editor. Here is a breakdown of the failure modes, race conditions, scaling bottlenecks, and proposed solutions.
Read the full answer
GLM 5.31,311 words
Architecture Review: Real-Time Collaborative Editor This design has serious issues across correctness, performance, and security. Let me break them down by severity. 🔴 Critical: Correctness / Data Loss Client-clock-based Last-Write-Wins (LWW) Problem: Client clocks are unreliable (skew, manual changes, timezone bugs).
Read the full answer
Our Verdict
GLM 5.2
GLM 5.2
GLM 5.3
GLM 5.3

Not enough votes to call it. On the specs, nothing separates them.

Too close to call
API pricing

Cost per 1M tokens

GLM 5.2
Input
$1.40
Output
$4.40
GLM 5.3
Input
$0.65
2.1× cheaper
Output
$2.05
2.1× cheaper

GLM 5.3 is cheaper on both: 2.1× input, 2.1× output.

Where to run it

53 hosts, cheapest first

GLM 5.223 hosts
HostInOutContextUptime
Baidu Qianfanfp8$0.56 in·$1.76 out·1M·99.9% upDDeepInfrafp4$0.56 in·$1.80 out·1M·98.8% upAAmbientfp8$0.60 in·$2.00 out·203k·99.2% upSStreamLakefp8$0.64 in·$2.01 out·1M·99.5% upNNovitafp8$0.65 in·$2.04 out·1M·99.9% upDDigitalOcean$0.70 in·$2.20 out·262k·98.1% up
17 more hostsFewer hosts
CCoreWeavefp4$0.76 in·$2.42 out·1M·99.9% upAAtlasCloudfp8$0.94 in·$2.95 out·1M·99.9% upAlibaba Cloudfp8$0.97 in·$3.04 out·1M·99.9% upIInceptronfp4$1.01 in·$3.18 out·1M·98.7% upSSiliconFlowfp8$1.19 in·$3.74 out·1M·99.9% upPPhalafp8$1.26 in·$3.00 out·1M·99.2% upBBasetenfp8$1.40 in·$4.40 out·1M·100% upCloudflare Workers AI$1.40 in·$4.40 out·262k·100% upFFireworks$1.40 in·$4.40 out·1M·99.9% upFFriendli$1.40 in·$4.40 out·1M·99.8% upGGMI Cloudfp8$1.40 in·$4.40 out·1M·98.8% upPParasailfp4$1.40 in·$4.40 out·262k·99.9% upTTogether$1.40 in·$4.40 out·512k·99.5% upVVenicefp8$1.40 in·$4.40 out·1M·99.8% upWWafer$1.40 in·$4.40 out·1M·99.4% upZ.aifp8$1.40 in·$4.40 out·1M·99.7% upDDecartfp4$2.25 in·$8.00 out·1M·99.8% up
GLM 5.330 hosts
HostInOutContextUptime
Baidu Qianfanfp8$0.65 in·$2.05 out·1M·99.8% upMMorph$0.65 in·$2.06 out·1M·99.6% upRRekafp8$0.76 in·$2.57 out·262k·98.5% upNNovitafp8$0.78 in·$2.46 out·1M·96.4% upIio.netfp8$0.82 in·$2.77 out·262k·99.4% upPPhala$0.84 in·$2.64 out·1M·99.5% up
24 more hostsFewer hosts
DDeepInfrafp4$0.90 in·$3.00 out·1M·97.9% upDDigitalOcean$0.91 in·$2.86 out·1M·80.2% upIInceptronfp4$1.01 in·$3.29 out·1M·98.8% upSSail Researchfp8$1.02 in·$3.29 out·1M·96.7% upGGMI Cloudfp8$1.05 in·$3.30 out·1M·99.1% upSSiliconFlowfp8$1.12 in·$3.52 out·1M·99.6% upAlibaba Cloud$1.19 in·$3.74 out·1M·100% upFFriendli$1.26 in·$3.96 out·1M·100% upAAkashMLfp8$1.30 in·$4.40 out·1M·99.9% upAAtlasCloudfp8$1.40 in·$4.40 out·1M·99.2% upBBasetenfp4$1.40 in·$4.40 out·1M·99.6% upCloudflare Workers AI$1.40 in·$4.40 out·1.3M·100% upCCrusoefp4$1.40 in·$4.40 out·1M·97.4% upFFireworks$1.40 in·$4.40 out·1M·99.6% upMistralnvfp4$1.40 in·$4.40 out·1M·99.8% upModal$1.40 in·$4.40 out·1M·97.7% upPParasailfp8$1.40 in·$4.40 out·1M·98.8% upTTogether$1.40 in·$4.40 out·1M·97.7% upVVenice$1.40 in·$4.40 out·1M·77.5% upWWafer$1.40 in·$4.40 out·1M·99.2% upZ.aifp8$1.40 in·$4.40 out·1M·99.9% upIInferenceNetfp4degraded$0.90 in·$3.00 out·1M·95.8% upMMakorafp4degraded$1.05 in·$4.20 out·980k·92.9% upDDecartfp4degraded$1.19 in·$3.74 out·1M·97.8% up

Per million tokens. Prices and uptime via OpenRouter, checked 22 Sep 2026.

Research

What we learned reading every model

FAQ

Common questions

Both are developed by Zhipu AI but target different use cases. GLM 5.2 has a 1.0M token context window vs GLM 5.3's 1.3M. You can compare their actual outputs across 13 challenges on Rival to see how they differ in practice.

It depends on your use case. GLM 5.2 and GLM 5.3 each have strengths in different areas. Rival lets you compare their real outputs side-by-side across 13 challenges so you can judge which fits your needs best.

GLM 5.2 costs $1.4/M input tokens and GLM 5.3 costs $0.6538/M input tokens. GLM 5.3 is $0.75/M cheaper per input. Check their side-by-side outputs on Rival to see if the price difference is justified by quality.

This page shows a side-by-side comparison of GLM 5.2 and GLM 5.3 across shared challenges. You can vote on which model produced the better output in a blind duel. Browsing and voting are free. No account is needed to look; signing in only saves your votes and likes.

Keep exploring

More comparisons

Against the newest arrivals

GLM 5.2 logoDeepSeek V4 Flash Vision Exp logo
GLM 5.2 vs DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision ExpLanded Sep 2026
GLM 5.3 logoSolar Pro 4 logo
GLM 5.3 vs Solar Pro 4Landed Sep 2026
GLM 5.2 logoHy3 logo
GLM 5.2 vs Hy3Landed Sep 2026
GLM 5.3 logoQwen3.7 Flash logo
GLM 5.3 vs Qwen3.7 FlashLanded Sep 2026
GLM 5.2 logoLing 3.0 Flash logo
GLM 5.2 vs Ling 3.0 FlashLanded Sep 2026
GLM 5.3 logoMuse Glimmer 30B logo
GLM 5.3 vs Muse Glimmer 30BLanded Sep 2026
GLM 5.2 logoTernary Bonsai 2 27B logo
GLM 5.2 vs Ternary Bonsai 2 27BLanded Sep 2026
GLM 5.3 logoGLM 5.3 Flash logo
GLM 5.3 vs GLM 5.3 FlashLanded Sep 2026

Same lab, same size, long tail

GLM 5.2 logoGLM 5.3 Flash logo
GLM 5.2 vs GLM 5.3 FlashSame lab
GLM 5.2 logoGLM 5.3 FlashX logo
GLM 5.2 vs GLM 5.3 FlashXSame lab
GLM 5.3 logoGLM 5.3 FlashX logo
GLM 5.3 vs GLM 5.3 FlashXSame lab
GLM 5.3 logoGLM 5 logo
GLM 5.3 vs GLM 5Same lab
GLM 5.3 logoGemma 3 12B logo
GLM 5.3 vs Gemma 3 12BSame size
GLM 5.3 logoGemma 3 27B logo
GLM 5.3 vs Gemma 3 27BNew provider
GLM 5.2 logoGemma 3n 2B logo
GLM 5.2 vs Gemma 3n 2BNew provider
GLM 5.3 logoGemma 3n 4B logo
GLM 5.3 vs Gemma 3n 4BNew provider

Model pages

GLM 5.2 logo
GLM 5.258 outputs, specs and price
GLM 5.3 logo
GLM 5.313 outputs, specs and price
Rival
How it worksPrivacyTerms
Explore all of Rival

Explore

  • Compare Models
  • All Models
  • Image Comparison
  • Audio Comparison
  • Image Generation
  • Best AI For...
  • Arena
  • API Pricing
  • Challenges

Discover

  • SubjectiveBench
  • Research
  • Research downloads
  • Rival Kits
  • Find your AI taste
  • UI Glow-Up
  • VoiceLock
  • Cost Cutter
  • Agent skills
  • Benchmarks vs Vibes
  • Brief
  • Jailbreak
  • Model Updates
  • Provider Status
  • AI Creators

Connect

  • Methodology
  • Advertise
  • Partnerships
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms
  • RSS Feed