Undominated.ai

Model comparison · accepted catalogue facts 2026-10-21

GLM 5.2 vs GLM 5.3

GLM 5.3 has an equal-or-higher measured score and an equal-or-lower estimated price. No known model-capability loss from GLM 5.2; endpoint and task checks still apply. The reported score intervals overlap; this is not an established quality improvement.

Editorial comparison: Z.ai tier choice: GLM 5.3 vs GLM 5.2 with comparable measured benchmark scores Inclusion does not recommend either model.

GLM 5.2

LMArena general · Elo · higher is better

Scale starts at 1040 Elo

1470.0

Balanced effective USD / 1M tokens · lower is better

$1.12/M

Price under confirmation since Oct 12, 2026
GLM 5.3

LMArena general · Elo · higher is better

Scale starts at 1040 Elo

1471.4

Balanced effective USD / 1M tokens · lower is better

$1.00/M

Price under confirmation since Oct 12, 2026

In-Depth Analysis

GLM 5.2 vs GLM 5.3: Measured Technical Breakdown

Comprehensive comparison across measured human-preference evaluation, effective production token costs, architectural limits, and migration trade-offs.

Measured Capability (LMArena)
GLM 5.3 leads by 1.4 Elo

GLM 5.2: 1470 ±4.17 · GLM 5.3: 1471.4 ±5.23 Intervals overlap — not a guaranteed quality advantage

Cost Comparison Across Canonical Production Workloads

Rates represent effective cost per 1M tokens under standard token blends. Cached prompt reads are factored according to workload context reuse.

Workload & RatioGLM 5.2GLM 5.3Cost DifferenceAdvantage
Balanced 3 tokens in per 1 out$1.12 /1M tokens$1.00 /1M tokens$0.120 (11% diff)GLM 5.3 costs less
Summarise Huge input, tiny output$0.422 /1M tokens$0.346 /1M tokens$0.076 (18% diff)GLM 5.3 costs less
Chat Long cached system prompt$1.56 /1M tokens$1.47 /1M tokens$0.090 (6% diff)GLM 5.3 costs less
Code gen Output dominates$2.24 /1M tokens$2.12 /1M tokens$0.126 (6% diff)GLM 5.3 costs less
Agentic Context replayed each turn$0.693 /1M tokens$0.650 /1M tokens$0.043 (6% diff)GLM 5.3 costs less

Architectural & Operational Specifications

SpecificationGLM 5.2GLM 5.3Operational Note
Context window1,048,576 tokens1,048,576 tokens—
Max output generation943,718 tokens943,718 tokens—
Base input price$0.309 / 1M tokens$0.200 / 1M tokensGLM 5.3 input rate is cheaper
Base output price$3.55 / 1M tokens$3.40 / 1M tokensGLM 5.3 output rate is cheaper
Cached input price$0.137 / 1M tokens$0.150 / 1M tokensGLM 5.2 offers lower cached prompt cost
Reasoning & thinking tokensSupported; standard ratesSupported; standard rates—
Input modalitiestexttext—
Tool calling / function useSupportedSupported—
Open weights & licenceOpen weights (mit)Open weights (glm-5.3)—
Provider & reseller marketZ.ai · 33 provider offers (9.21× spread)Z.ai · 41 provider offers (46.67× spread)—

When to Choose GLM 5.2

  • Direct integration with Z.ai tooling and API features.

When to Choose GLM 5.3

  • Higher measured general capability (1471.4 Elo on human evaluation).
  • Direct integration with Z.ai tooling and API features.

Detailed Evidence Passports & Independent Audits

GLM 5.2 Full model card, pricing ladder & provider offers → GLM 5.3 Full model card, pricing ladder & provider offers → Alternatives to GLM 5.2 Better-and-cheaper dominance audit → Alternatives to GLM 5.3 Better-and-cheaper dominance audit →

Compare · model decision

Choose two or three models

Inspect the differences, estimate your workload and keep the evidence. All standard catalogue models are available, including unrated ones.

Catalogue facts
2026-10-21

2 / 3 selected · 0 requirements
Open public comparison link
Public workload and requirements

These settings are included in the share link. The fixed-request scenario and private evaluation data below are excluded.

A ↔ B

GLM 5.3 has an equal-or-higher measured score and an equal-or-lower estimated price. No known model-capability loss from GLM 5.2; endpoint and task checks still apply. The reported score intervals overlap; this is not an established quality improvement.

Estimated blend: 75% input, 25% output; 0% cached input. Base context tier. Prompt length selects the billing tier. An unlisted cache-read rate uses that tier’s full input rate in this blend; missing required input or output rates prevent an estimate. The fixed-request estimate below validates actual context and output limits and requires a published cache-read rate when cache hits are assumed.

What changes between these models

Quality first, then estimated price. LMArena scores are human-preference measurements, not a benchmark of your application. A missing score is unrated.

  • GLM 5.2 · Meets the stated model requirements
  • GLM 5.3 · Meets the stated model requirements
Material differences and unknown evidence. Deltas compare each model with model A. Unknown facts remain visible.
Measured factA GLM 5.2B GLM 5.3
LMArena general score (Elo)1,4701,471.4Δ vs A: +1.4 Elo
Score interval half-width (± Elo)4.175.23Δ vs A: +1.06 Elo
LMArena document score (Elo)UnknownUnknown
Estimated effective USD / 1M tokens$1.12$1Δ vs A: -0.12 USD/M
Base input USD / 1M tokens$0.309$0.2Δ vs A: -0.109 USD/M
Base output USD / 1M tokens$3.553$3.4Δ vs A: -0.153 USD/M
Base cached-input USD / 1M tokens$0.137$0.15Δ vs A: +0.013 USD/M
Recorded licencemitglm-5.3
Distinct sellers in the catalogue2632Δ vs A: +6
Recorded retirement dateUnknownUnknown
11 shared measured facts
Shared measured facts. Deltas compare each model with model A. Unknown facts remain visible.
Measured factA GLM 5.2B GLM 5.3
Benchmark reasoning effortmaxmax
Price statusUnder confirmation since 2026-10-12Under confirmation since 2026-10-12
Context window (tokens)1,048,5761,048,576Δ vs A: 0 tokens
Output limit (tokens)943,718943,718Δ vs A: 0 tokens
Input modalitiestexttext
Tool useSupportedSupportedΔ vs A: 0
ReasoningSupportedSupportedΔ vs A: 0
Open weightsSupportedSupportedΔ vs A: 0
Model providerZ.aiZ.ai
Serving precision differs across offersSupportedSupportedΔ vs A: 0
Retirement evidenceNone announced; not a guaranteeNone announced; not a guarantee

Provider counts and precision flags describe catalogue offers. They do not establish the precision, availability, region, tool behaviour or limits of your chosen endpoint. Open each model’s provider table before switching.

Complete price ladders and billing conditions

GLM 5.2

Rates below are USD per 1M tokens. A threshold selects that whole input/output rate pair.

Input-token thresholdInputOutputCached input
Base, up to and including first threshold$0.309$3.553$0.137

GLM 5.3

Rates below are USD per 1M tokens. A threshold selects that whole input/output rate pair.

Input-token thresholdInputOutputCached input
Base, up to and including first threshold$0.2$3.4$0.15
Migration preflight · compare each candidate with model A

Keeping GLM 5.2 is a valid decision. No pairwise comparison certifies a drop-in replacement.

GLM 5.2 → GLM 5.3

No known model-capability loss

  • Provider endpoint, serving precision, availability and task success need your own verification. Catalogue model capabilities do not certify an endpoint.
Check alternatives to GLM 5.2

Estimate a fixed request shape

Private to this tab unless you save locally or explicitly export private details. These are estimates, not observed invoices. Cross-model token counts and task success are assumptions.

0.1 extra attempts means 10 extra full attempts per 100 requests. Cache writes, tool charges, taxes and unlisted charges are excluded.

  • GLM 5.2Estimated total: $2.3945 1,000 full attempts · base rates
  • GLM 5.3Estimated total: $2.1 1,000 full attempts · base rates
Prompt and output sensitivity · sampled scenarios

Every point recalculates the entire request shape. Tier-boundary samples include one token below, at and above each threshold. Ordering between samples is not guaranteed. Lowest known cost excludes unknown estimates and is not a replacement recommendation.

Vary input; hold output, requests, cache and retries fixed.
Input tokensGLM 5.2GLM 5.3Coverage
2,000$2.3945$2.1Lowest knownAll computed
4,096$3.042164$2.5192Lowest knownAll computed
32,768$11.901812$8.2536Lowest knownAll computed
131,072$42.277748$27.9144Lowest knownAll computed
Vary output; hold input, requests, cache and retries fixed.
Output tokensGLM 5.2GLM 5.3
128$1.072784$0.8352
2,048$7.894544$7.3632
8,192$29.724176$28.2528

Bring your observed evaluation results

JSON is parsed locally. Prompts, filenames, individual responses and extra fields are not retained. Import only aggregate measurements for selected models. Task/version labels do not establish that two evaluations used the same dataset.

Expected format
[{"model":"provider/exact-model-id","task":"support-answer","version":"rubric-1","attempts":100,"successes":84,"costUsd":2.4,"latencyMs":950}]

Use the exact catalogue ID. Replace the example values with observed measurements. Omit costUsd or latencyMs when they are unknown. No public score is inferred from these observations.

Keep the decision and its evidence

A portable record retains selected facts, complete tier ladders, public requirements and the publication manifest. It also embeds the full permitted public catalogue to verify the input artifact checksum. Files are larger for this reason (up to 2 MB); local storage is limited to 12 records. Team review is local to this browser; there is no hosted collaboration.

Saving is opt-in and includes private review fields. Shared comparison links never include them. Version 1 Check references remain separate and are not overwritten or guessed into this format.

Saved local decisions · 0

No version 2 decision records are stored in this browser.

Questions this page answers

Is GLM 5.2 a better-and-cheaper replacement for GLM 5.3?

GLM 5.3 has an equal-or-higher measured score and an equal-or-lower estimated price. No known model-capability loss from GLM 5.2; endpoint and task checks still apply. The reported score intervals overlap; this is not an established quality improvement.

Which model is higher rated: GLM 5.2 or GLM 5.3?

GLM 5.3 scores higher on LMArena general (1471.4 ±5.2) compared to GLM 5.2 (1470.0 ±4.2), a margin of 1.4 Elo points. However, because the 95% confidence intervals overlap, this does not establish an unconditional superiority across all tasks.

Which model is more cost-effective: GLM 5.2 or GLM 5.3?

On a standard balanced workload (3 prompt tokens per 1 generated token), GLM 5.3 costs $1.00 (price under confirmation since 2026-10-12) per 1M tokens versus $1.12 (price under confirmation since 2026-10-12) for GLM 5.2. GLM 5.2 is approximately 1.1× the price of GLM 5.3. Base input rates are $0.309 for GLM 5.2 and $0.200 for GLM 5.3; base output rates are $3.55 for GLM 5.2 and $3.40 for GLM 5.3.

How do their context windows and generation limits compare?

Both GLM 5.2 and GLM 5.3 provide an identical 1,048,576-token context window. Maximum output generation limits are 943,718 tokens for GLM 5.2 and 943,718 tokens for GLM 5.3.

What capabilities are lost when switching between GLM 5.2 and GLM 5.3?

Neither model exhibits a confirmed loss in declared context or modalities when switching between them. However, differences in tokenizer efficiency, prompt alignment, and latency across providers should be benchmarked on task-specific test suites.

Can GLM 5.2 or GLM 5.3 be self-hosted or deployed privately?

Both GLM 5.2 and GLM 5.3 provide open weights, enabling self-hosting on private GPU infrastructure, local quantization, and private data pipelines. Managed inference is also offered across third-party API providers (33 for GLM 5.2, 41 for GLM 5.3).

What is included in this comparison?

Accepted model capabilities, context and output limits, complete price-tier ladders, independent LMArena measurements and missing evidence. Provider endpoint precision and application success still need verification.

Can I compare a different workload or keep a decision record?

Yes. Change the public workload, prompt length and requirements in the comparison workspace. Fixed-request scenarios, aggregate evaluations and review notes stay local unless explicitly exported.

Evidence & Ask
Markdown for LLMs