Skip to main content
BenchLM

DeepSeek V3.2 vs GLM-5.1

Updated September 23, 2026. Rank says GLM-5.1 is ahead. Price, access, and your workload can each overturn that. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty.

Share or export
Share on XLinkedInSocial cardCSVJSON

Decision reading

GLM-5.1 has the higher public score estimate, 57.71 versus 50.2, but the 90% score intervals overlap. Treat that as a lead, not a settled winner. 5 results are shared. Category rows resting on Estimated evidence or different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.

Model A
DeepSeek logo
DeepSeek V3.2

DeepSeek

50.2/100

Supported · Public rank #77

90% interval 37.0–63.4

Model B
Z.AI logo
GLM-5.1

Z.AI

57.71/100

Supported · Public rank #48

90% interval 47.6–67.8

Shared results
5
DeepSeek V3.2 only
2
GLM-5.1 only
21
Like-for-like categories
0 / 8
Supported: DeepSeek V3.2 and GLM-5.1How the comparison works

Which one for your work

Recommendations appear only when a shared evidence basis or an explicit operating constraint supports the call. Secondary and unsupported use cases stay disclosed below the initial list.

  • Long documents

    Prompts that approach the documented context limit

    GLM-5.1

    GLM-5.1 has the larger documented context window.

    Confidence: documented

  • Chat turn cost

    1K fresh input + 500 output tokens

    DeepSeek V3.2

    DeepSeek V3.2 has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.

    Confidence: listed-rates
Show secondary and unsupported calls

  • Repository review cost

    50K fresh input + 3K output tokens

    DeepSeek V3.2

    DeepSeek V3.2 has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.

    Confidence: listed-rates

  • Coding work

    Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks

    Not enough matched evidence

    DeepSeek V3.2 is scored on Estimated evidence for coding, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like.

    Confidence: limited

  • Agentic work

    Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion

    Not enough matched evidence

    DeepSeek V3.2 is not ranked on the public lane for agentic, so no winner is named for agentic.

    Confidence: limited

  • Cache-heavy agent loop cost

    200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens

    Not enough matched evidence

    The page does not recommend a cost winner because at least one model cannot fit the stated workload in one request. DeepSeek V3.2 does not fit this workload in one request. GLM-5.1 does not fit this workload in one request. GLM-5.1 has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.

    Confidence: rate-fallback

Which one for a specific job

Choose a job from the LLM Selector's task catalog to see the category row it rests on, under the same basis rules as the table below. A directional row stays directional; choosing a job never creates a winner.

The same task catalog as the LLM Selector. Each job names the evidence surface it rests on; nothing here adds a new score.

35.6DeepSeek V3.251.5GLM-5.1

Directional only · BenchAlign v5.6

GLM-5.1 scores higher, but at least one score rests on Estimated evidence or a different benchmark set. Directional only, no winner.

Coding scores combine specific tasks and setups. Match the editor, harness, and effort to your workflow.

Open the coding leaderboardShortlist models for this job
Same basis rules as the category table below

What is actually comparable

Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results present for only one model describe coverage, not superiority.

3 categories rest on Estimated evidence or different evidence sets. Those rows remain visible for coverage context but do not name a winner.

Shape of the matched evidence

Only shared public evidence is shown. Sparse evidence stays a ruled list rather than being closed into a radar shape.

Too few matched category axes support a radar. The ruled list below shows only shared benchmark results; positions use each benchmark’s normalized display scale when available.

  • FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Math

    Normalized gap 11.3
    DeepSeek V3.2:22.100%
    GLM-5.1:33.448%
    Shared source

  • FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Math

    Normalized gap 10.4
    DeepSeek V3.2:2.100%
    GLM-5.1:12.500%
    Shared source

  • SWE-RebenchCoding

    Normalized gap 1.8
    DeepSeek V3.2:60.9%
    GLM-5.1:62.7%
    Shared source
Bars run 0–100 on each benchmark’s normalized display scale

Category results, on a stated basis

Each row shows the public-lane category score for both models: the BenchAlign v5.6 lane for agentic, coding, and knowledge, and the weighted public rows elsewhere, with the same rank each model page reports. A row is like-for-like only when both scores rest on Supported evidence or the same weighted set. Directional and not-comparable rows remain visible, but they never receive a winner.

Coding

Directional only
DeepSeek V3.2
35.6
Estimated · #81/135
GLM-5.1
51.5
Supported · #36/135
Basis
BenchAlign v5.6 lane · 2 vs 7 public rows
Reading
Directional only

Knowledge

Directional only
DeepSeek V3.2
40.7
Estimated · #85/160
GLM-5.1
50.2
Supported · #54/160
Basis
BenchAlign v5.6 lane · 0 vs 4 public rows
Reading
Directional only

Instruction following

Directional only
DeepSeek V3.2
56.7
#75/124
GLM-5.1
92.4
#4/124
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Directional only

Agentic

Not comparable
DeepSeek V3.2
Not ranked
GLM-5.1
42.1
Estimated · #43/105
Basis
BenchAlign v5.6 lane · 3 vs 9 public rows
Reading
Not comparable

Reasoning

Not comparable
DeepSeek V3.2
52.4
Unranked · 2 rankable rows
GLM-5.1
71.7
Unranked · 2 rankable rows
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multimodal

Not comparable
DeepSeek V3.2
Not ranked
GLM-5.1
Not ranked
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multilingual

Not comparable
DeepSeek V3.2
Not ranked
GLM-5.1
Not ranked
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Math

Not comparable
DeepSeek V3.2
40.0
Unranked · 2 rankable rows
GLM-5.1
63.8
#3/7
Basis
Provisional lane · 2 vs 4 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Ranks count the models scored in each category’s lane, so the agentic, coding, and knowledge denominators (BenchAlign v5.6) differ from the provisional-lane categories. Unranked scores sit on the provisional lane’s scale but never name a winner. Like-for-like rows within 0.5 points read as a practical tie.

Supported evidence per lane · bars run 0–100Methodology

What each workload costs

Three fixed token mixes turn per-token rates into comparable decisions. Each scenario states context fit and whether cached input had to fall back to the published list-input rate.

Chat turn

1K fresh input + 500 output tokens

DeepSeek V3.2
$0.00049
Fits in one request
GLM-5.1
$0.0036
Fits in one request

DeepSeek V3.2 has the lower modeled cost

Costs use the listed standard API rates.

Repository review

50K fresh input + 3K output tokens

DeepSeek V3.2
$0.01526
Fits in one request
GLM-5.1
$0.0832
Fits in one request

DeepSeek V3.2 has the lower modeled cost

Costs use the listed standard API rates.

Cache-heavy agent loop

200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens

DeepSeek V3.2
$0.0154
Does not fit in one request
GLM-5.1
$0.352
Does not fit in one request
Cached input priced at the published list-input rate

DeepSeek V3.2 does not fit this workload in one request. GLM-5.1 does not fit this workload in one request. GLM-5.1 has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.

Cached input falls back to the list input rate only where a cached rate is unpublished

Specification differences

Sourced differences are shown directly. Missing facts stay explicit instead of being inferred from a model name or family.

Context window

Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.

DeepSeek V3.2

128K

GLM-5.1

203K

API model ID

DeepSeek V3.2

Not sourced

GLM-5.1

Not sourced

Cached-input rate

A missing cached-input rate falls back to the listed input rate only in the stated workload estimate.

DeepSeek V3.2

$0.028 per 1M cached input tokens

GLM-5.1

Not published

Documented inputs

DeepSeek V3.2

Not sourced

GLM-5.1

Not sourced

Documented outputs

DeepSeek V3.2

Not sourced

GLM-5.1

Not sourced

Provider availability

DeepSeek V3.2

Not sourced

GLM-5.1

Not sourced

Reasoning profile

DeepSeek V3.2

Non-Reasoning

GLM-5.1

Reasoning

Weight access

DeepSeek V3.2

Open Weight

GLM-5.1

Open Weight

License

DeepSeek V3.2

Open Weight

GLM-5.1

Open Weight

Release date

DeepSeek V3.2

2025-12-01

GLM-5.1

2026-04-07

If you already use one of these models

Deployment change
The models list different providers, so authentication, endpoint behavior, limits, and feature support may change.
Quality signal
GLM-5.1 has the higher public score estimate, 57.71 versus 50.2, but the 90% score intervals overlap.
Workload cost
Repository review: $0.01526 vs $0.0832. Cache-heavy agent loop: $0.0154 vs $0.352.
Context tradeoff
GLM-5.1 has the larger documented window (203K).
Run the same representative tasks against both endpoints before changing production traffic.

Questions

Which is better, DeepSeek V3.2 or GLM-5.1?

GLM-5.1 has the higher public score estimate, 57.71 versus 50.2, but the 90% score intervals overlap. The higher estimate is not a decisive winner because the uncertainty ranges overlap.

Which is better for coding, DeepSeek V3.2 or GLM-5.1?

GLM-5.1 scores higher for coding on the public lane, 51.5 to 35.6. DeepSeek V3.2 is scored on Estimated evidence for coding, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like. BenchLM does not name a winner for coding from a directional reading; read the shared benchmark rows directly and test the models on the same task set.

Which is better for agentic tasks, DeepSeek V3.2 or GLM-5.1?

DeepSeek V3.2 is not ranked on the public lane for agentic tasks, so no winner is named for agentic tasks.

Which costs less, DeepSeek V3.2 or GLM-5.1?

For the stated presets, chat costs $0.00049 on DeepSeek V3.2 and $0.0036 on GLM-5.1; repository review costs $0.01526 and $0.0832; the cache-heavy agent loop costs $0.0154 and $0.352. DeepSeek V3.2 does not fit this workload in one request. GLM-5.1 does not fit this workload in one request. GLM-5.1 has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.

Which has the larger context window, DeepSeek V3.2 or GLM-5.1?

GLM-5.1 has the larger documented context window: 203K, compared with 128K.

Self-host vs API cost

Estimates at 50,000 req/day · 1000 tokens/req average.

DeepSeek V3.2
API / mo$525
Self-host / moNot listed
Break-even—
Proprietary model — self-hosting not applicable.
GLM-5.1
API / mo$4,350
Self-host / mo$18,221
Break-even264M/day
Model the full break-even

Benchmark evidence

The full public result ledger is available for audit without forcing a wide desktop table onto a phone.

Browse raw public benchmark evidence28 rows

Agentic

  • Claw-Eval

    Shared source
    DeepSeek V3.240.2%
    GLM-5.162.3%

    GLM-5.1 leads this result

  • VITA-Bench

    DeepSeek V3.218.5%
    Source
    GLM-5.1—

    Not directly comparable

  • Gert Labs

    Shared source
    DeepSeek V3.229.57%
    GLM-5.160.11%

    GLM-5.1 leads this result

  • Terminal-Bench 2.0

    DeepSeek V3.2—
    GLM-5.163.5%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • BrowseComp

    DeepSeek V3.2—
    GLM-5.168%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • τ³-bench results

    DeepSeek V3.2—
    GLM-5.170.6%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • MCP Atlas

    DeepSeek V3.2—
    GLM-5.171.8%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • CyberGym

    DeepSeek V3.2—
    GLM-5.168.7%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • ResearchClawBench

    DeepSeek V3.2—
    GLM-5.118.2%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals)

    DeepSeek V3.2—
    GLM-5.156.9%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Coding

  • SWE-Rebench

    Shared source
    DeepSeek V3.260.9%
    GLM-5.162.7%

    GLM-5.1 leads this result

  • React Native Evals

    DeepSeek V3.271.5%
    Source
    GLM-5.1—

    Not directly comparable

  • SWE-bench Pro

    DeepSeek V3.2—
    GLM-5.158.4%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • NL2Repo

    DeepSeek V3.2—
    GLM-5.142.7%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • Vibe Code Bench

    DeepSeek V3.2—
    GLM-5.131.46%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • OpenHarmony Bench

    DeepSeek V3.2—
    GLM-5.152.3%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • LiveCodeBench (Vals)

    DeepSeek V3.2—
    GLM-5.181.4%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • SWE-bench (Vals)

    DeepSeek V3.2—
    GLM-5.176.4%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Knowledge

  • GPQA-D

    DeepSeek V3.2—
    GLM-5.186.2%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • HLE

    DeepSeek V3.2—
    GLM-5.152.3%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • GPQA Diamond (Vals)

    DeepSeek V3.2—
    GLM-5.184.5%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • MMLU-Pro (Vals)

    DeepSeek V3.2—
    GLM-5.186.9%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Math

  • FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)

    Shared source
    DeepSeek V3.222.100%
    GLM-5.133.448%

    GLM-5.1 leads this result

  • FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)

    Shared source
    DeepSeek V3.22.100%
    GLM-5.112.500%

    GLM-5.1 leads this result

  • AIME26

    DeepSeek V3.2—
    GLM-5.195.3%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • HMMT Nov 2025

    DeepSeek V3.2—
    GLM-5.194.0%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • HMMT Feb 2026

    DeepSeek V3.2—
    GLM-5.182.6%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • MMAnswerBench

    DeepSeek V3.2—
    GLM-5.183.8%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

28 public results · 5 shared

Related comparisons

Compare API pricingRead the methodologyOpen the model selector

Watch DeepSeek V3.2 vs GLM-5.1

One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.

Read a sample issue

Join 2,000+ readers.

Last updated September 23, 2026