DeepSeek V4 Pro (0813) vs GLM-5.2
DeepSeek V4 Pro (0813) vs GLM-5.2
DeepSeek V4 Pro leads on most of what independent boards can check: LiveCodeBench (87.53 vs 69.5, both vals.ai runs — a real gap), long-horizon coding and multi-tool chores (real-sized gaps, though DeepSeek's side of those two is still the vendor's number), and Agents' Last Exam (25.2 vs an independently-measured 20.4 — an earlier version of this page had GLM ahead here; that was our metric mix-up, corrected 2026-08-17). Reasoning is a dead heat: HLE without tools is 41.0 vs 41.1 in Artificial Analysis's own runs. DeepSeek is also the cheaper model. GLM-5.2's real differentiator isn't a benchmark: it's MIT-licensed open weights.
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 | 81.0self-reported | Tie |
| 🛠️ Long-horizon coding | 62.7self-reported | 44.0independent | Real gap |
| 🧰 Multi-tool chores | 74.1self-reported | 59.9independent | Real gap |
| 💼 Professional work | 25.2self-reported | 20.4independent | Real gap |
| 🐛 Bug fixing | 96.4independent | 82.8independent | Tainted |
| 🔬 Expert science Q&A | 92.4independent | 85.6independent | Tie |
| ⌨️ Contest coding | 87.5independent | 69.5independent | Real gap |
In plain English: Scores that use different tool setups aren’t directly comparable — see each row’s signal before reading the ranking.
Who should pick which
- Most workloads on a budget → DeepSeek V4 Pro (0813) (leads or ties everywhere measured, and its listed rates are cheaper than GLM-5.2's)
- Self-hosting, fine-tuning, or license-sensitive deployment → GLM-5.2 (MIT open weights — the one axis where no benchmark matters and GLM wins outright)
- Contest-style coding → DeepSeek V4 Pro (0813) (LiveCodeBench 87.53 vs 69.5, both sides run by vals.ai — the cleanest real gap in this matchup)
Pricing
| Input / 1M tokens | $0.66 | $1.40 |
| Output / 1M tokens | $1.98 | $4.40 |
FAQ
Is DeepSeek V4 Pro (0813) better than GLM-5.2?
DeepSeek V4 Pro leads on most of what independent boards can check: LiveCodeBench (87.53 vs 69.5, both vals.ai runs — a real gap), long-horizon coding and multi-tool chores (real-sized gaps, though DeepSeek's side of those two is still the vendor's number), and Agents' Last Exam (25.2 vs an independently-measured 20.4 — an earlier version of this page had GLM ahead here; that was our metric mix-up, corrected 2026-08-17). Reasoning is a dead heat: HLE without tools is 41.0 vs 41.1 in Artificial Analysis's own runs. DeepSeek is also the cheaper model. GLM-5.2's real differentiator isn't a benchmark: it's MIT-licensed open weights.
Which is cheaper, DeepSeek V4 Pro (0813) or GLM-5.2?
DeepSeek V4 Pro (0813) costs less per output token ($1.98 vs $4.40 per 1M tokens, official listed rates).