Skip to main content
BenchLM
Advertise

Model comparison

DeepSeek V4 Pro Base vs GLM-5

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 3 shared benchmark results across 2 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

N/A
No comparison
GLM-5
Z.AI
66.06/100
0 category wins1 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: DeepSeek V4 Pro Base unranked (Not scored); GLM-5 #28 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. DeepSeek V4 Pro Base and GLM-5 share 3 comparable benchmark results. 2 of 8 categories are comparable. 21 results are unique to DeepSeek V4 Pro Base; 46 to GLM-5.

Updated July 23, 2026
Shared results
3
DeepSeek V4 Pro Base only
21
GLM-5 only
46
Comparable categories
2 / 8

Treat this as a split decision. DeepSeek V4 Pro Base makes more sense if you need the larger 1M context window; GLM-5 is the better fit if reasoning is the priority.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 3 shared benchmark results across 2 evidence categories; 2 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.

Why this result

DeepSeek V4 Pro Base and GLM-5 finish on the same BenchAlign overall score, so this is less about a single winner and more about where the edge shows up. The BenchAlign headline says tie; the benchmark table is where the real choice happens.

DeepSeek V4 Pro Base gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 200K for GLM-5.

Category breakdown

Exact category averages are shown below. Not measured means BenchLM does not have enough sourced public coverage for that model and category.

Category scores and score margins for DeepSeek V4 Pro Base and GLM-5
CategoryDeepSeek V4 Pro BaseΔGLM-5
ReasoningDeepSeek V4 Pro Base51.5Margin→ 9.3GLM-560.8
KnowledgeDeepSeek V4 Pro Base66.4MarginTieGLM-566.4
AgenticDeepSeek V4 Pro BaseNot measuredMarginNo overlapGLM-556.2
CodingDeepSeek V4 Pro BaseNot measuredMarginNo overlapGLM-566.3
MathDeepSeek V4 Pro BaseNot measuredMarginNo overlapGLM-556.3
MultilingualDeepSeek V4 Pro BaseNot measuredMarginNo overlapGLM-583.1
Inst. FollowingDeepSeek V4 Pro BaseNot measuredMarginNo overlapGLM-592.6

Decisive benchmark drivers

The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.

More
A · DeepSeek V4 Pro BaseB · GLM-5

  1. SuperGPQA

    Knowledge
    Source ↗
    A 53.9%B 66.8%
    Winner: GLM-5Δ 12.9
    SuperGPQA: DeepSeek V4 Pro Base scored 53.9%; GLM-5 scored 66.8%. GLM-5 wins this benchmark.

  2. MMLU-Pro

    Knowledge
    Source ↗
    A 73.5%B 85.7%
    Winner: GLM-5Δ 12.2
    MMLU-Pro: DeepSeek V4 Pro Base scored 73.5%; GLM-5 scored 85.7%. GLM-5 wins this benchmark.

  3. LongBench v2

    Reasoning
    Source ↗
    A 51.5%B 60.8%
    Winner: GLM-5Δ 9.3
    LongBench v2: DeepSeek V4 Pro Base scored 51.5%; GLM-5 scored 60.8%. GLM-5 wins this benchmark.

Operational comparison

Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.

MetricDeepSeek V4 Pro BaseGLM-5Comparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensDeepSeek V4 Pro BaseNot availableGLM-5$1 input / $3.2 outputA complete price comparison is not available.
Generation speedtokens per secondDeepSeek V4 Pro BaseNot availableGLM-574 tok/sA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenDeepSeek V4 Pro BaseNot availableGLM-51.64 sA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensDeepSeek V4 Pro Base1MGLM-5200KDeepSeek V4 Pro Base lists the larger context window.

Benchmark Deep Dive

Agentic
BenchmarkDeepSeek V4 Pro BaseGLM-5Result
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source —56.2%Not comparable
Claw-EvalSource —57.7%Not comparable
QwenClawBenchSource —54.1%Not comparable
τ³-bench resultsSource —65.6%Not comparable
DeepPlanningSource —14.6%Not comparable
ToolathlonSource —38%Not comparable
MCP AtlasSource —31.1%Not comparable
MCP-TasksSource —60.8%Not comparable
WideResearchSource —69.8%Not comparable
τ²-bench resultsSource —98.2%Not comparable
CyberGymSource —43.2%Not comparable
APEX-Agents-AASource —14.5%Not comparable
Gert LabsSource —50.99%Not comparable
Coding
BenchmarkDeepSeek V4 Pro BaseGLM-5Result
BigCodeBenchSource 59.2%—Not comparable
HumanEvalSource 76.8%—Not comparable
SWE-bench VerifiedSource —77.8%Not comparable
SWE-bench Verified*Source —72.8%Not comparable
SWE-bench ProSource —55.1%Not comparable
SWE MultilingualSource —73.3%Not comparable
SWE-RebenchSource —62.8%Not comparable
React Native EvalsSource —74.8%Not comparable
AA-SciCodeSource —46.2%Not comparable
ReasoningGLM-5 wins
BenchmarkDeepSeek V4 Pro BaseGLM-5Result
BBHSource 87.5%—Not comparable
DROPSource 88.7%—Not comparable
HellaSwagSource 88.0%—Not comparable
WinoGrandeSource 81.5%—Not comparable
CLUEWSCSource 85.2%—Not comparable
LongBench v2Source 51.5%60.8%GLM-5 leads
AI-NeedleSource —63.3%Not comparable
AA-LCRSource —63.3%Not comparable
CritPtSource —2.0%Not comparable
KnowledgeTie
BenchmarkDeepSeek V4 Pro BaseGLM-5Result
AGIEvalSource 83.1%—Not comparable
MMLUSource 90.1%—Not comparable
MMLU-ReduxSource 90.8%—Not comparable
MMLU-ProSource 73.5%85.7%GLM-5 leads
MMMLUSource 90.3%—Not comparable
C-EvalSource 93.1%—Not comparable
CMMLUSource 90.8%—Not comparable
MultiLoKoSource 51.1%—Not comparable
SimpleQASource 55.2%—Not comparable
SuperGPQASource 53.9%66.8%GLM-5 leads
FACTS ParametricSource 62.6%—Not comparable
TriviaQASource 85.6%—Not comparable
GPQASource —86%Not comparable
GPQA-DSource —86.0%Not comparable
MMLU-Pro (Arcee)Source —85.8%Not comparable
HLESource —50.4%Not comparable
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource —39.5%Not comparable
AA-GPQA DiamondSource —82.0%Not comparable
AA-HLESource —27.2%Not comparable
AA-Omniscience IndexSource —2.0%Not comparable
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource —26.9%Not comparable
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource —34.0%Not comparable
Math
BenchmarkDeepSeek V4 Pro BaseGLM-5Result
GSM8KSource 92.6%—Not comparable
MATHSource 64.5%—Not comparable
CMathSource 90.9%—Not comparable
AIME26Source —95.8%Not comparable
AIME25 (Arcee)Source —93.3%Not comparable
HMMT Feb 2025Source —97.5%Not comparable
HMMT Nov 2025Source —96.9%Not comparable
HMMT Feb 2026Source —86.4%Not comparable
MMAnswerBenchSource —82.5%Not comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source —16.434%Not comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source —2.100%Not comparable
Multilingual
BenchmarkDeepSeek V4 Pro BaseGLM-5Result
MGSMSource 84.4%—Not comparable
MMLU-ProXSource —83.1%Not comparable
NOVA-63Source —55.1%Not comparable
Multimodal
BenchmarkDeepSeek V4 Pro BaseGLM-5Result
Design Arena WebsiteSource —1278Not comparable
Inst. Following
BenchmarkDeepSeek V4 Pro BaseGLM-5Result
IFEvalSource —92.6%Not comparable
AA-IFBenchSource —72.3%Not comparable
Frequently Asked Questions (3)

Which is better, DeepSeek V4 Pro Base or GLM-5?

DeepSeek V4 Pro Base and GLM-5 are tied on the BenchAlign overall score, so the right pick depends on which category matters most for your use case.

Which is better for knowledge tasks, DeepSeek V4 Pro Base or GLM-5?

DeepSeek V4 Pro Base and GLM-5 are effectively tied for knowledge tasks here, both landing at 66.4 on average.

Which is better for reasoning, DeepSeek V4 Pro Base or GLM-5?

GLM-5 has the edge for reasoning in this comparison, averaging 60.8 versus 51.5. Inside this category, LongBench v2 is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Related Comparisons

Explore More

DeepSeek Compare Pricing Methodology Find Your Best LLM Overall Rankings
Last updated: July 23, 2026

Choose a model with this week’s evidence

Join 2,000+ readers for ranking moves, pricing changes, and the claims that still need proof.

One email each week. Unsubscribe anytime.