Compare DeepSeek V4 Flash (DeepSeek) and GLM-5.2 (Zhipu AI (GLM)) by price, context, capabilities, and latency.
Side by side
Compare price, provider, context, capabilities, latency, and source basis.
| Model | Provider | Input | Output | Context | Capabilities | Best for | Latency | Status | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DeepSeek V4 Flashdeepseek-v4-flash | DeepSeek | $0.112 / 1M tokens | $0.224 / 1M tokens | 128k | Tool callingJSON modeLong contextReasoning | low-cost Chinese tasks, long-context summary | 700-2200ms | Catalog | OpenRouter if available |
| GLM-5.2glm-5-2 | Zhipu AI (GLM) | ¥8 / 1M tokens | ¥28 / 1M tokens | 128k | Tool callingJSON modeStreamingReasoning | general-purpose reasoning, Chinese Q&A | 1000-3000ms | Production | Platform curated |
FAQ
DeepSeek V4 Flash is cheaper ($0.112 / 1M tokens input / $0.224 / 1M tokens output) vs GLM-5.2 (¥8 / 1M tokens input / ¥28 / 1M tokens output). Actual cost depends on your input/output token mix — estimate it with the pricing calculator.
Both offer the same context window: 128k tokens.
Both target Chinese. Pick DeepSeek V4 Flash to optimize cost, or DeepSeek V4 Flash for the longer context window. Test both on real prompts before committing production traffic.