DeepSeek V4 Pro (0813) vs GLM-5.2
DeepSeek V4 Pro (0813) vs GLM-5.2
DeepSeek V4 Pro has one clean win an independent board confirms: LiveBench (77.4 vs 73.2, both run on LiveBench's own harness), a real gap. LiveCodeBench (87.53 vs 69.5, both vals.ai runs) used to be the second; since 2026-09-29 this site grades that benchmark saturated, so the 18-point spread is filed as tainted — GLM-5.2, a superseded model, sits far below a ceiling most current models have reached, which is not the same evidence as two current models being separated. Its apparent edges on long-horizon coding, multi-tool chores, and Agents' Last Exam (62.7, 74.1, 25.7) are all still the vendor's own numbers measured against GLM's independently-run scores (44, 59.9, 20.4) — call those unverified, not real, until someone reruns DeepSeek's side. (An earlier version of this page called the Agents' Last Exam number a confirmed real gap; that was wrong for the same reason it was wrong before — corrected 2026-08-19, after 2026-08-17's separate metric-mix-up fix.) Terminal-Bench 2.1 doesn't compare cleanly either: this site's rows are Artificial Analysis's 78.7 for DeepSeek and vals.ai's 67.79 for GLM-5.2, different harnesses, and on vals.ai's own board, which ran both on one harness, GLM-5.2 leads DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 by 67.79 to 54.68, a 13.1-point gap past the 10.6 band — off this site's tracked rows, but the one same-harness reading that favors GLM. Reasoning is a dead heat: HLE without tools is 41.0 vs 41.1 in Artificial Analysis's own runs. ARC-AGI-2 doesn't add a comparable line either — DeepSeek's tracked score is its Max tier (61.3) while GLM-5.2's is a flat, untiered 22.8, no matched tier to compare. On price the two now sit within about 10% of each other at list rates ($1.32/$3.96 vs $1.40/$4.40), so the discount is no longer a reason to pick either — and most of DeepSeek's apparent benchmark leads here are still unconfirmed vendor numbers. GLM-5.2 isn't actually differentiated by license: DeepSeek V4 Pro ships under the identical MIT terms. (An earlier version of this page called MIT-licensed weights GLM's exclusive edge — that was wrong; corrected 2026-08-20.) What does set GLM-5.2 apart is provenance: 11 of its 12 tracked scores are independently run, versus 7 of 11 for DeepSeek V4 Pro.
DeepSeek V4 Pro (0813) vs GLM-5.2: benchmark by benchmark
| Benchmark | DeepSeek V4 Pro (0813) | GLM-5.2 | Signal |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reasoning(no tools) | 41.0independent | 41.1independent | Tie |
| Reasoning(with tools) | 60.0self-reported | 54.7self-reported | Unverified |
| Terminal ops | 78.7independent | 67.8independent | Setup-dependent |
| Long-horizon coding | 62.7self-reported | 44.0independent | Unverified |
| Multi-tool chores | 74.1self-reported | 59.9independent | Unverified |
| Professional work | 25.7self-reported | 20.4independent | Unverified |
| Bug fixing | 96.4independent | 82.8independent | Tainted |
| Expert science Q&A | 92.4independent | 85.6independent | Tainted |
| Contest coding | 87.5independent | 69.5independent | Tainted |
| Compositional visual reasoning(max) | 61.3independent | Not sourced yet | |
| Compositional visual reasoning(untiered) | Not sourced yet | 22.8independent | |
| Composite score across 7 domains | 77.4independent | 73.2independent | Real gap |
| Competition mathematics | Not sourced yet | 92.4independent |
Across 13 rows comparing DeepSeek V4 Pro (0813) and GLM-5.2: 1 row carries a confirmed real gap, 1 row lands inside the noise band, and 11 rows carry other caveats — unverified, tainted, or run on mismatched tool setups. Read each row’s Signal label before ranking DeepSeek V4 Pro (0813) against GLM-5.2.
Who should pick DeepSeek V4 Pro (0813), and who should pick GLM-5.2
- Most workloads on a budget → DeepSeek V4 Pro (0813) (ties or claims a lead on everything this site tracks (some of those leads are still unconfirmed vendor numbers, and vals.ai's same-harness Terminal-Bench 2.1 runs favor GLM-5.2); on list price the two are within about 10%, so this pick rests on the benchmarks, not the bill)
- Whoever wants the more independently-checked scorecard → GLM-5.2 (11 of GLM-5.2's 12 tracked scores are independent runs, versus 7 of 11 for DeepSeek V4 Pro — not a license edge (both are MIT open weights), but a provenance one)
- Composite everyday benchmark → DeepSeek V4 Pro (0813) (LiveBench 77.4 vs 73.2, both run on LiveBench's own board — the one confirmed real gap left in this matchup now that LiveCodeBench (87.53 vs 69.5) is graded saturated and no longer called)
DeepSeek V4 Pro (0813) vs GLM-5.2 pricing
| Input / 1M tokens | $1.32 | $1.40 |
| Output / 1M tokens | $3.96 | $4.40 |
DeepSeek V4 Pro (0813) vs GLM-5.2 FAQ
Is DeepSeek V4 Pro (0813) better than GLM-5.2?
DeepSeek V4 Pro has one clean win an independent board confirms: LiveBench (77.4 vs 73.2, both run on LiveBench's own harness), a real gap. LiveCodeBench (87.53 vs 69.5, both vals.ai runs) used to be the second; since 2026-09-29 this site grades that benchmark saturated, so the 18-point spread is filed as tainted — GLM-5.2, a superseded model, sits far below a ceiling most current models have reached, which is not the same evidence as two current models being separated. Its apparent edges on long-horizon coding, multi-tool chores, and Agents' Last Exam (62.7, 74.1, 25.7) are all still the vendor's own numbers measured against GLM's independently-run scores (44, 59.9, 20.4) — call those unverified, not real, until someone reruns DeepSeek's side. (An earlier version of this page called the Agents' Last Exam number a confirmed real gap; that was wrong for the same reason it was wrong before — corrected 2026-08-19, after 2026-08-17's separate metric-mix-up fix.) Terminal-Bench 2.1 doesn't compare cleanly either: this site's rows are Artificial Analysis's 78.7 for DeepSeek and vals.ai's 67.79 for GLM-5.2, different harnesses, and on vals.ai's own board, which ran both on one harness, GLM-5.2 leads DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 by 67.79 to 54.68, a 13.1-point gap past the 10.6 band — off this site's tracked rows, but the one same-harness reading that favors GLM. Reasoning is a dead heat: HLE without tools is 41.0 vs 41.1 in Artificial Analysis's own runs. ARC-AGI-2 doesn't add a comparable line either — DeepSeek's tracked score is its Max tier (61.3) while GLM-5.2's is a flat, untiered 22.8, no matched tier to compare. On price the two now sit within about 10% of each other at list rates ($1.32/$3.96 vs $1.40/$4.40), so the discount is no longer a reason to pick either — and most of DeepSeek's apparent benchmark leads here are still unconfirmed vendor numbers. GLM-5.2 isn't actually differentiated by license: DeepSeek V4 Pro ships under the identical MIT terms. (An earlier version of this page called MIT-licensed weights GLM's exclusive edge — that was wrong; corrected 2026-08-20.) What does set GLM-5.2 apart is provenance: 11 of its 12 tracked scores are independently run, versus 7 of 11 for DeepSeek V4 Pro.
Which is cheaper, DeepSeek V4 Pro (0813) or GLM-5.2?
DeepSeek V4 Pro (0813) costs less per output token ($3.96 vs $4.40 per 1M tokens, official listed rates).