GLM 5.1 vs GLM 5.2

Z.ai · China  |  Z.ai · China · Updated June 2026

Quick verdict

Both are Z.ai models. GLM 5.2 is the newer, generally stronger default; reach for GLM 5.1 when a specific cost or latency profile matters more than the latest capabilities.

GLM 5.1 and GLM 5.2 are both Z.ai models, so the real question is not which lab to trust but which tier fits your workload and budget. GLM 5.1 is an open-weight (MIT) Chinese coding model built for long-horizon agentic engineering, topping SWE-Bench Pro at launch while running autonomously for up to 8 hours. GLM 5.2 is an open-weight reasoning model built for long-horizon coding and multi-step agent workflows — strong and cheap. Since both come from the same lab, the comparison below focuses on the tier-and-cost trade-offs that actually separate them.

Key differences at a glance

Side-by-side specs

SpecGLM 5.1GLM 5.2
ProviderZ.ai (China) Z.ai (China)
ReleasedApril 7, 2026 June 13, 2026
Context window200K (~300 pages) 1M (~1,500 pages)
Price (in/out)$1.4/$4.4 per 1M tokens $1.4/$4.4 per 1M tokens
Open weight?Yes — self-hostable Yes — self-hostable
Modalitiestext, code text, code
SWE-Bench VerifiedNot published Not published
MRCR v2 @ 1MNot published Not published

Who wins what

Long-horizon autonomous agentic engineering (up to 8-hour runs)

GLM 5.1

A core design strength of GLM 5.1.

State-of-the-art open-weight coding (topped SWE-Bench Pro at launch)

GLM 5.1

A core design strength of GLM 5.1.

Sustained tool use across thousands of calls

GLM 5.1

A core design strength of GLM 5.1.

Long-horizon agentic coding

GLM 5.2

A core design strength of GLM 5.2.

Project-level software engineering

GLM 5.2

A core design strength of GLM 5.2.

Tool use across long-running tasks

GLM 5.2

A core design strength of GLM 5.2.

Largest single-prompt input

GLM 5.2

Its 1M window is about 5× larger, fitting roughly 1,500 pages in one prompt.

Which should you pick?

Someone analysing very long documents or codebases

GLM 5.2

Larger 1M window fits more in one prompt.

Anyone whose priority is long-horizon autonomous agentic engineering (up to 8-hour runs)

GLM 5.1

It is specifically built for that.

Anyone whose priority is long-horizon agentic coding

GLM 5.2

That is its strongest area.

GLM 5.1: where it fits

An open-weight (MIT) Chinese coding model built for long-horizon agentic engineering, topping SWE-Bench Pro at launch while running autonomously for up to 8 hours. Released April 7, 2026 by Z.ai, it is built for long-horizon autonomous agentic engineering (up to 8-hour runs), state-of-the-art open-weight coding (topped SWE-Bench Pro at launch), sustained tool use across thousands of calls, and self-hostable under a permissive MIT license.

Its trade-offs are real: text-only, with no image, audio, or video input, and 754B-parameter MoE demands heavy GPU resources to self-host. At $1.4 in / $4.4 out per million tokens, it sits in the mid price band.

GLM 5.2: where it fits

An open-weight reasoning model built for long-horizon coding and multi-step agent workflows — strong and cheap. Released June 13, 2026 by Z.ai, it is built for long-horizon agentic coding, project-level software engineering, tool use across long-running tasks, and tops the open-weight intelligence index (SWE-bench Pro 62.1).

Its trade-offs: text-only — no native multimodal input, and new release with a limited third-party track record. At $1.4 in / $4.4 out per million tokens, it sits in the mid price band.

The bottom line for this matchup

Because GLM 5.1 and GLM 5.2 come from the same lab (Z.ai), they share the same training philosophy and ecosystem — the decision is purely tier vs. cost. GLM 5.2 is the more capable, more recent option; the other earns its place only when its price or latency profile fits a specific job better. Most teams should default to GLM 5.2 and drop down only with a concrete reason.

Want both GLM 5.1 and GLM 5.2 without two subscriptions? LumiChats gives you these plus 40+ models under one ₹69/day pass (about $1/day) — draft with one, cross-check with the other.

See pricing

Frequently asked questions

Is GLM 5.1 or GLM 5.2 better for coding?

Public SWE-Bench figures are not available for either model, so the honest test is your own repository — run an identical real bug through both. By design, GLM 5.1 leans toward long-horizon autonomous agentic engineering (up to 8-hour runs) while GLM 5.2 leans toward long-horizon agentic coding, and that positioning usually predicts which feels better on your codebase.

Which is cheaper, GLM 5.1 or GLM 5.2?

They are priced almost identically, so cost will not decide between them.

Which has the bigger context window?

GLM 5.2 — 1M vs 200K, about 5× larger. Useful only if the model actually reasons over the full window, which not all do.

Should I upgrade from GLM 5.1 to GLM 5.2?

Since both are Z.ai models, the newer one (GLM 5.2) is usually the better default unless you need a specific cost or latency profile from the other.

Which is newer, GLM 5.1 or GLM 5.2?

GLM 5.2 — released June 13, 2026, about 2 months after GLM 5.1.

Related comparisons

Specifications and benchmarks reflect publicly reported figures as of June 2026 and may change as providers release updates. Always verify on your own workload.