BenchLeader

DeepSeek V4 Pro vs GLM-5.2

Verdict
  • DeepSeek V4 Pro (max) and GLM-5.2 (max) are level on quality (64.2 vs 63.9).
  • DeepSeek V4 Pro (max) is stronger in agents & tools, composite, instruction following, knowledge, long context.
  • GLM-5.2 (max) is stronger in coding, maths, reasoning, human preference.
  • DeepSeek V4 Pro (max) is 4.0× cheaper ($0.544 vs $2.15 per 1M blended).
MetricDeepSeek V4 Pro (max)GLM-5.2 (max)
BenchLeader Index64.263.9
Agents & tools score70.263.8
Coding score58.863.8
Composite score75.072.1
Instruction following score74.371.6
Knowledge score58.155.5
Long context score66.665.6
Maths score53.759.0
Reasoning score70.972.9
Human preference score67.2
Blended price $/M$0.544$2.15
Output speed81 tok/s71 tok/s
Time to first answer55.6 s31.6 s
Context window1M1M
GPQA Diamond89.7%91.9%
FrontierMath Tiers 1–345.3%59.2%
FrontierMath Tier 42.4%29.3%
OTIS Mock AIME96.7%86.4%
SWE-bench Verified (Epoch)77.6%78.7%
SimpleQA Verified47.0%34.2%
SciCode50.0%50.5%
WeirdML48.9%70.1%
ProofBench16.0%35.0%
LMArena Text1472
LMArena Hard Prompts1493
LMArena Coding1510
LMArena WebDev1592
LMArena Agent4.4
AA Intelligence Index36.334.0
IFBench76.5%73.3%
AA-LCR80.3%78.3%
AA-Omniscience0.84.4
Terminal-Bench Hard46.2%50.8%
GPQA Diamond (AA)92.8%89.5%
Humanity's Last Exam (AA)41.0%41.1%
SciCode (AA)51.0%51.2%
τ²-Bench Telecom (AA)96.2%99.1%
LiveCodeBench87.5%
MMLU-Pro87.3%
LegalBench80.3%
CorpFin61.4%
TaxEval72.1%
Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals)67.8%
SWE-bench (Vals)77.4%82.8%
GPQA Diamond (Vals)89.4%
Vals Index42.9
AIME 202696.7%
HMMT February 202693.9%
MathArena Apex28.1%
CritPt18.0%20.9%
GDPval (AA)49.7%45.3%
τ²-Bench Banking (AA)39.6%34.6%
ITBench SRE (AA)38.3%42.7%
Analyst Agent (AA)18.8%
APEX-Agents (AA)24.3%33.7%
CaseLaw v259.4%
Code Migration26.2%37.9%
Excel Modeling Benchmark51.6%
Finance Agent v244.1%
Harvey's Legal Agent Benchmark3.8%7.1%
Legal Research Bench23.1%31.3%
MedCode40.5%
MedScribe75.1%
ProgramBench0.0%0.5%
Public Benefits Bench62.9%
SkillsBench51.3%45.1%
SREBench0.0%
Vibe Code Bench v1.149.9%64.0%
LMArena Maths1480
LMArena Creative Writing1451
LMArena Instruction Following1466
LMArena Multi-turn1469
LMArena Longer Queries1483
Chess Puzzles20.0%21.0%
EBR-bench9.5%
PostTrainBench31.7%
DeepSWE43.8%
LMCA41.2%45.8%
DTBench90.7%93.6%
CursorBench55.0%
ALE-Bench1010.2

Data as of 2026-09-19. Best configuration of each model; every score links to its source on the model pages.

DeepSeek V4 Pro vs GLM-5.2: questions

Is DeepSeek V4 Pro better than GLM-5.2?
DeepSeek V4 Pro (max) and GLM-5.2 (max) are level on quality (64.2 vs 63.9). The BenchLeader Index combines every independent quality benchmark; DeepSeek V4 Pro (max) is ahead overall as of 2026-09-19, but check the category scores for your use.
Is DeepSeek V4 Pro better than GLM-5.2 for coding?
GLM-5.2 scores higher in coding (64 vs 59 on the category index, where 50 is average).
Is DeepSeek V4 Pro better than GLM-5.2 for agentic tasks?
DeepSeek V4 Pro scores higher in agentic tasks (70 vs 64 on the category index, where 50 is average).
Which is cheaper, DeepSeek V4 Pro or GLM-5.2?
DeepSeek V4 Pro is cheaper: $0.544 against $2.15 per million tokens, blended at three input tokens per output token.
Which is faster, DeepSeek V4 Pro or GLM-5.2?
DeepSeek V4 Pro streams faster: 81 against 71 output tokens per second.
Which has the larger context window?
Both accept 1M tokens of context.