DeepSeek-V4-Pro vs GLM-5.2
Wins 2 of 7 areas
Facts · Following instructions
Wins 5 of 7 areas
Coding · Agents · Reasoning · Math · Long documents
GLM-5.2 is the stronger all-rounder.DeepSeek-V4-Pro is cheaper and better at facts.
Scores updated · 57 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 software06GLM-5.26 of 7 tests · 1 tie
- AgentsCarrying out multi-step tasks on its own15GLM-5.25 of 6 tests
- MathCompetition and research-level math14GLM-5.24 of 6 tests · 1 tie
- ReasoningHard problems that need careful thinking13GLM-5.23 of 5 tests · 1 tie
- Long documentsFinding answers in very long texts01GLM-5.21 of 1 test
- FactsGetting facts right instead of making them up21DeepSeek-V4-Pro2 of 3 tests
- Following instructionsDoing exactly what it is asked10DeepSeek-V4-Pro1 of 2 tests · 1 tie
Long documents rests on a single test.
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-V4-Pro costs 78% 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-5.2 pulls ahead
- Avoids making up answers it doesn't knowAA-Omniscience · Non-hallucination+67.8points ahead
- Extremely hard research-level math problemsFrontierMath Tier 4+26.9points ahead
- Command-line tasks in a real terminalTerminal-Bench 2.1+13.9points ahead
Where DeepSeek-V4-Pro pulls ahead
- Answers hard knowledge questions correctlyAA-Omniscience · Accuracy+18.7points ahead
- Complex command-line tasks across many fieldsTerminal-Bench 4.0+13.6points ahead
- Short factual questions, answered correctlySimpleQA Verified+12points ahead
Every test, side by side
All 57 tests both models report. The winning score is in its model's colour; marks a score checked independently.
CodingGLM-5.2
- LMArena · WebDevGLM-5.2 by 139 rating points14641603+139 rating
- Terminal-Bench 2.1GLM-5.2 by 13.96477.9+13.9
- LiveBench · CodingGLM-5.2 by 9.77079.7+9.7
- LiveBench · Agentic CodingGLM-5.2 by 9.242.651.8+9.2
- SWE-bench ProGLM-5.2 by 6.755.462.1+6.7
- Terminal-Bench HardGLM-5.2 by 4.646.250.8+4.6
- SciCodetie50.851.2tie
AgentsGLM-5.2
- Terminal-Bench 4.0DeepSeek-V4-Pro by 13.614.61+13.6
- GDPValGLM-5.2 by 10.832.943.7+10.8
- AA ApexAgentsGLM-5.2 by 9.424.333.7+9.4
- τ-Bench V3 · BankingGLM-5.2 by 4.530.134.6+4.5
- AA IT-Bench SREGLM-5.2 by 4.438.342.7+4.4
- MCP AtlasGLM-5.2 by 3.273.676.8+3.2
ReasoningGLM-5.2
- CritPtGLM-5.2 by 812.920.9+8
- SimpleBenchGLM-5.2 by 7.950.958.8+7.9
- LiveBench · ReasoningDeepSeek-V4-Pro by 4.182.778.6+4.1
- Humanity's Last ExamGLM-5.2 by 3.637.541.1+3.6
- GPQA Diamondtie88.889.5tie
FactsDeepSeek-V4-Pro
- AA-Omniscience · Non-hallucinationGLM-5.2 by 67.85.973.7+67.8
- AA-Omniscience · AccuracyDeepSeek-V4-Pro by 18.74324.3+18.7
- SimpleQA VerifiedDeepSeek-V4-Pro by 1246.234.2+12
MathGLM-5.2
- FrontierMath Tier 4GLM-5.2 by 26.92.429.3+26.9
- FrontierMath Tiers 1-3 (v2)GLM-5.2 by 13.945.359.2+13.9
- HMMT Feb. 2026DeepSeek-V4-Pro by 2.795.292.5+2.7
- AIME 2026GLM-5.2 by 2.596.799.2+2.5
- IMOAnswerBenchGLM-5.2 by 1.289.891+1.2
- LiveBench · Mathematicstie90.789.8tie
Following instructionsDeepSeek-V4-Pro
- IFBenchDeepSeek-V4-Pro by 3.276.573.3+3.2
- LiveBench · Instruction Followingtie62.462.3tie
Other results27 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.
- DeepSWEGLM-5.2 by 33.412.846.2+33.4
- DSBench-HardGLM-5.2 by 23.431.154.5+23.4
- GDPval-AA v2GLM-5.2 by 202 rating points13061508+202 rating
- DSBench-FullStackGLM-5.2 by 2041.861.8+20
- Program BenchGLM-5.2 by 15.947.863.7+15.9
- AA-OmniscienceGLM-5.2 by 15.1-10.74.4+15.1
- AA Agentic IndexGLM-5.2 by 11.727.739.4+11.7
- NL2RepoGLM-5.2 by 10.438.548.9+10.4
- Artificial Analysis Coding IndexGLM-5.2 by 9.459.468.8+9.4
- Terminal-bench 3.0DeepSeek-V4-Pro by 7.211.84.6+7.2
- SWEBench Pro PublicGLM-5.2 by 6.755.462.1+6.7
- HLE (wo / w tools)GLM-5.2 by 6.548.254.7+6.5
- CyberGymDeepSeek-V4-Pro by 6.183.377.2+6.1
- HLE (with tools)DeepSeek-V4-Pro by 5.36054.7+5.3
- Tool-DecathlonDeepSeek-V4-Pro by 4.652.848.2+4.6
- Toolathlon VerifiedGLM-5.2 by 455.959.9+4
- ToolathlonDeepSeek-V4-Pro by 3.651.848.2+3.6
- AA IntelligenceGLM-5.2 by 3.330.433.7+3.3
- τ²-Bench Telecom (AA run)GLM-5.2 by 2.996.299.1+2.9
- Agents' Last ExamDeepSeek-V4-Pro by 1.925.723.8+1.9
- livebench_languageDeepSeek-V4-Pro by 1.978.176.2+1.9
- livebench_data_analysistie74.573.7tie
- τ³-Bench Bankingtie2626.8tie
- AutomationBench Publictie12.812.9tie
- Global-MMLU-Litetie89.389.2tie
- StrongREJECTtie98.698.5tie
- HMMT Nov. 2025tie94.494.4tie
Questions people ask
Which is better, DeepSeek-V4-Pro or GLM-5.2?
GLM-5.2 wins five of the seven areas where both have results: coding, agents, reasoning, math and long documents. DeepSeek-V4-Pro wins facts and following instructions, and costs 78% less.
Which is better for coding?
GLM-5.2. It wins 6 of the 7 coding tests both models report; DeepSeek-V4-Pro wins none, and 1 is a tie.
Which is cheaper?
DeepSeek-V4-Pro costs $0.43 per million input tokens and $0.87 per million output tokens; GLM-5.2 costs $1.40 and $4.40. That makes DeepSeek-V4-Pro about 78% cheaper for the same work.
How do you compare the two?
We use the 57 benchmark tests both models have published scores on. The verdict counts the 30 tests in the eight capability areas, and a gap under one point (ten on rating-style scales) counts as a tie. The other 27 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.