Skip to main content
AI Choice EngineAI Choice Engine

Model comparison

DeepSeek R1 vs GLM 5.2

DeepSeek against Z.ai, compared on context, price, and verified benchmark results.

Catalog record checked September 3, 2026Individual provider fields may changeEvidence confidence: High — see receipts below

DeepSeek

DeepSeek R1

Balanced · Open weights

vs

Z.ai

GLM 5.2

Balanced · Open weights

AI model capability comparison
SpecificationDeepSeek R1GLM 5.2
ProviderDeepSeekZ.ai
TierBalancedBalanced
Context window128KWinner: 1M
Max output33KWinner: 128K
Input / 1M tokensWinner: $0.55$1.40
Output / 1M tokensWinner: $2.19$4.40
WeightsOpenOpen
Parameters671B total / 37B active (MoE)open MoE
Reasoning levelslow, high, maxlow, high, max
Modalitiestexttext
LicenseMITNot disclosedUnverified
API model iddeepseek-reasonerglm-5.2
ReleasedJanuary 20, 2025March 15, 2026
Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index (2026-08-14)42Winner: 50

Prices are USD per million tokens at standard rates, excluding batch and caching discounts. Bold indicates the better figure where one is objectively better. Values we could not confirm from the provider are shown as “Not verified” rather than estimated.

Benchmark receipts

  • 2026-08-14: Artificial AnalysisComposite index blending reasoning, knowledge, and coding evals into one 0–100 score. Comparability: directly comparable — AA occasionally rebaselines the index scale between snapshots — a score captured on one date is only comparable to same-snapshot scores (check measuredAt).

Pricing tiers: DeepSeek R1: Launch pricing $0.55/$2.19 per MTok (cache hit $0.14). Third-party hosts list ~$0.70/$2.50. Verify which weights a host serves. · GLM 5.2: Z.ai's per-token table lists $1.40/$4.40 per MTok (same list as 5.3). Open-weight, text-only; 1M context, 128K max output per Z.ai docs.

BalancedOpen weightsRecord checked September 3, 2026

DeepSeek R1

DeepSeek R1 is the open-weight (MIT) reasoning model — o1-class quality, 128K context.

Best for

  • Harder reasoning on a budget
  • Open-weight deployments
  • Agentic coding

Watch out

The deepseek-reasoner alias has been remapped to newer models on first-party API; pin the host/checkpoint you cite.

BalancedOpen weightsRecord checked September 3, 2026

GLM 5.2

GLM 5.2 is Zhipu's previous-generation open-weight model with strong cost-performance.

Best for

  • Open-weight deployments
  • Reasoning
  • Cost-sensitive work

Watch out

Superseded by GLM 5.3 (Coding Plan 5.2/5.1 requests route to 5.3). Parameter count: sources disagree.

When the cheaper one wins

DeepSeek R1 is cheaper on output at $2.19 per million tokens against $4.40 for GLM 5.2 — about 2.0×. Use the cheaper tier for classification, extraction, summarisation, and any task where the expensive model’s extra score does not change the accepted output. The expensive one only pays if your hardest task actually fails on the cheap tier. These are standard-tier API rates, excluding batch and cache discounts.

Run the model picker

Evidence confidence: High

How strong and complete the evidence behind this comparison is — not a prediction of which model is better.

  • Pricing verified on both sides — Input and output rates are verified for both models.
  • 5/5 core specs verified on both sides — All core specifications verified for both models.
  • 1 shared named benchmark with differing scores — Measured on: Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index.
  • Verified within the last 90 days — Newest catalog check was 8 days ago.
  • Both models carry source citations — Each side has at least two catalog sources on record.

Source receipts

Each catalog figure was checked against the provider or an independent second source on the date shown.

Related comparisons

Diving deeper on one model? DeepSeek R1 · GLM 5.2

Common questions

DeepSeek R1 vs GLM 5.2

Answered from the verified figures on this page rather than general guidance.

Is DeepSeek R1 or GLM 5.2 cheaper for input?

DeepSeek R1 is cheaper at $0.55 per million input tokens, against $1.40 for GLM 5.2 — roughly 2.5× the price. Output tokens usually dominate a real bill, so weigh the output rate more heavily than the input rate. These are base rates; DeepSeek R1 has tiered pricing: Launch pricing $0.55/$2.19 per MTok (cache hit $0.14). Third-party hosts list ~$0.70/$2.50. Verify which weights a host serves. GLM 5.2 has tiered pricing: Z.ai's per-token table lists $1.40/$4.40 per MTok (same list as 5.3). Open-weight, text-only; 1M context, 128K max output per Z.ai docs.

Is DeepSeek R1 or GLM 5.2 cheaper for output?

DeepSeek R1 is cheaper at $2.19 per million output tokens, against $4.40 for GLM 5.2 — roughly 2.0× the price. Output tokens usually dominate a real bill, so weigh the output rate more heavily than the input rate. These are base rates; DeepSeek R1 has tiered pricing: Launch pricing $0.55/$2.19 per MTok (cache hit $0.14). Third-party hosts list ~$0.70/$2.50. Verify which weights a host serves. GLM 5.2 has tiered pricing: Z.ai's per-token table lists $1.40/$4.40 per MTok (same list as 5.3). Open-weight, text-only; 1M context, 128K max output per Z.ai docs.

Which has the larger context window, DeepSeek R1 or GLM 5.2?

GLM 5.2 accepts 1M tokens against 128K for DeepSeek R1. This only matters if you routinely send very long documents or large codebases.

Do DeepSeek R1 and GLM 5.2 support the same reasoning levels?

Yes — both accept the same effort settings: "low", "high", "max". Higher effort costs more and takes longer, so start low and raise it only where output quality actually improves.

Should I use DeepSeek R1 or GLM 5.2?

Both sit in the balanced tier, so the choice usually comes down to price and context rather than capability. DeepSeek R1 suits harder reasoning on a budget; GLM 5.2 suits open-weight deployments.

Next step

Choosing between them

The verified figures that separate this pair, computed from the catalog rather than restated boilerplate.

  • Input price: DeepSeek R1 costs $0.55 per 1M tokens versus $1.40 for GLM 5.2 — a 2.5x difference at the headline tier.
  • Context: GLM 5.2 takes 1M against 128K for DeepSeek R1 — only decisive if your prompts approach the smaller window.
  • Measured capability: GLM 5.2 leads Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index 50 to 42 (measured 2026-08-14).
Run the model pickerEstimate stack costAll model comparisons

Choosing a harness rather than a model — Cursor, Copilot, Claude Code, Windsurf, or Lovable? Compare agentic harnesses · Latest releases.