DeepSeek-V3.2 vs GLM-5.1
Wins 0 of 7 areas
—
Wins 6 of 7 areas
Coding · Agents · Reasoning · Facts · Math · Following instructions
GLM-5.1 is the stronger all-rounder.DeepSeek-V3.2 is cheaper.
Scores updated · 40 tests both models report · How we compare
Where each one wins
Tests won in each of the seven areas where both have results. Each piece is one test, so a longer bar means more evidence; grey means the two scored within a point of each other.
- CodingWriting and fixing software08GLM-5.18 of 8 tests
- ReasoningHard problems that need careful thinking03GLM-5.13 of 3 tests
- AgentsCarrying out multi-step tasks on its own13GLM-5.13 of 4 tests
- FactsGetting facts right instead of making them up12GLM-5.12 of 3 tests
- MathCompetition and research-level math12GLM-5.12 of 3 tests
- Following instructionsDoing exactly what it is asked01GLM-5.11 of 1 test
- Long documentsFinding answers in very long texts00Even0 each · 1 tie
Long documents and following instructions rest on a single test each.
What it costs
Prices per million tokens, roughly 750,000 words. The bars show the cost of a million tokens read plus a million written.
DeepSeek-V3.2 costs 88% less for the same work.
The biggest differences
The three tests each model wins by the widest margin. Scores are out of 100.
Where GLM-5.1 pulls ahead
- Avoids making up answers it doesn't knowAA-Omniscience · Non-hallucination+52.8points ahead
- Long, multi-file coding tasks in real codebasesSWE-bench Pro+42.8points ahead
- Finds hard-to-locate facts by browsing the webBrowseComp+27.9points ahead
Where DeepSeek-V3.2 pulls ahead
- Answers hard knowledge questions correctlyAA-Omniscience · Accuracy+9.3points ahead
- Customer-service tasks in a simulated bankτ-Bench V3 · Banking+5.2points ahead
- Harvard-MIT high-school math contest problemsHMMT Feb. 2026+1.5points ahead
Every test, side by side
All 40 tests both models report. The winning score is in its model's colour; marks a score checked independently.
CodingGLM-5.1
- SWE-bench ProGLM-5.1 by 42.815.658.4+42.8
- Terminal-Bench 2.1GLM-5.1 by 1546.861.8+15
- LMArena · WebDevGLM-5.1 by 147 rating points13621509+147 rating
- Terminal-Bench HardGLM-5.1 by 7.635.643.2+7.6
- SciCodeGLM-5.1 by 5.938.944.8+5.9
- SWE-bench MultilingualGLM-5.1 by 3.170.273.3+3.1
- SWE-bench VerifiedGLM-5.1 by 3.173.176.2+3.1
- LiveCodeBench v6GLM-5.1 by 2.483.385.7+2.4
AgentsGLM-5.1
- BrowseCompGLM-5.1 by 27.951.479.3+27.9
- GDPValGLM-5.1 by 21.29.831+21.2
- MCP AtlasGLM-5.1 by 9.662.271.8+9.6
- τ-Bench V3 · BankingDeepSeek-V3.2 by 5.218.813.6+5.2
ReasoningGLM-5.1
- Humanity's Last ExamGLM-5.1 by 5.524.630.1+5.5
- GPQA DiamondGLM-5.1 by 2.88486.8+2.8
- CritPtGLM-5.1 by 1.72.94.6+1.7
FactsGLM-5.1
- AA-Omniscience · Non-hallucinationGLM-5.1 by 52.817.370.1+52.8
- AA-Omniscience · AccuracyDeepSeek-V3.2 by 9.33323.7+9.3
- SimpleQA VerifiedGLM-5.1 by 6.527.534+6.5
MathGLM-5.1
- IMOAnswerBenchGLM-5.1 by 5.578.383.8+5.5
- HMMT Feb. 2026DeepSeek-V3.2 by 1.584.182.6+1.5
- AIME 2026GLM-5.1 by 1.194.295.3+1.1
Other results17 tests, not counted
Tests outside the eight areas. They are not counted above: several are summary scores built from other tests, or the same test under another name.
- CyberGymGLM-5.1 by 51.417.368.7+51.4
- AA-OmniscienceGLM-5.1 by 23.4-22.50.8+23.4
- Terminal-Bench 2.0GLM-5.1 by 22.646.469+22.6
- browsecomp_with_context_managerGLM-5.1 by 11.767.679.3+11.7
- Artificial Analysis Coding IndexGLM-5.1 by 11.644.255.8+11.6
- HLE (with tools)GLM-5.1 by 11.540.852.3+11.5
- frontiermath_tier_4_v1GLM-5.1 by 10.42.112.5+10.4
- τ²-Bench Telecom (AA run)GLM-5.1 by 7.190.697.7+7.1
- AA Agentic IndexGLM-5.1 by 6.918.325.2+6.9
- GPQA (unspecified)GLM-5.1 by 6.279.986.1+6.2
- Tool-DecathlonGLM-5.1 by 5.535.240.7+5.5
- ToolathlonGLM-5.1 by 5.535.240.7+5.5
- AA IntelligenceGLM-5.1 by 4.621.526.1+4.6
- HMMT Nov. 2025GLM-5.1 by 49094+4
- HMMT 2025GLM-5.1 by 3.890.294+3.8
- τ³-BenchGLM-5.1 by 1.469.270.6+1.4
- MMLU-ProGLM-5.1 by 18586+1
Questions people ask
Which is better, DeepSeek-V3.2 or GLM-5.1?
GLM-5.1 wins six of the seven areas where both have results: coding, agents, reasoning, facts, math and following instructions. DeepSeek-V3.2 wins none, but costs 88% less. They are level on long documents.
Which is better for coding?
GLM-5.1. It wins 8 of the 8 coding tests both models report; DeepSeek-V3.2 wins none.
Which is cheaper?
DeepSeek-V3.2 costs $0.28 per million input tokens and $0.42 per million output tokens; GLM-5.1 costs $1.38 and $4.40. That makes DeepSeek-V3.2 about 88% cheaper for the same work.
How do you compare the two?
We use the 40 benchmark tests both models have published scores on. The verdict counts the 23 tests in the eight capability areas, and a gap under one point (ten on rating-style scales) counts as a tie. The other 17 are listed but not counted, because several are summary scores or repeat a test. Each score is the one shown on the model's own page.