DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (Max) vs GLM-5.2 (Max)

Which is better for the money: DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (Max) by DeepSeek or GLM-5.2 (Max) by Z AI? Intelligence, total benchmark cost, and end-to-end time from Artificial Analysis & other sources, snapshot 2026-10-25.

Clear winner

DeepSeekDeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (Max)Off the frontier

Intelligence: 45.10
Total cost: $445

Z AIGLM-5.2 (Max)Off the frontier

Intelligence: 33.70
Total cost: $2097

Verdict

Pick DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (Max)

GLM-5.2 (Max) vs DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (Max): 25.3% less intelligence, 371.7% more cost to run the AA benchmark, and 86.5% slower end-to-end.

Metric	DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (Max)	GLM-5.2 (Max)	Difference
Intelligence (higher is better)	45.1	33.7	−25.3% GLM-5.2 (Max) is 25.3% less intelligent
Total AA cost (lower is better)	$444.60	$2,097.29	+371.7% GLM-5.2 (Max) is 4.7× more expensive
End-to-end time (lower is better)	15.97s	29.78s	+86.5% GLM-5.2 (Max) is 86.5% slower
Price per 1M tokens (in / out)	$0.30 / $1.20	$1.40 / $4.40
Input modalities	Text, Image	Text

Open this matchup in the interactive picker DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (Max): what beats it GLM-5.2 (Max): what beats it

Today's Pareto frontier

Against the frontier

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (Max) is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, GPT-6.1 Sol (Medium) scores 47.80 for $361.
GLM-5.2 (Max) is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, GPT-6.1 Sol (Max) scores 51.80 for $1082.

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (Max)GLM-5.2 (Max)Today's Pareto frontierOpen-weights frontierEvery other model

Matchup

Compare something else

Agents: Accept: text/markdown or ?format=md returns this page as Markdown. JSON: /api/v1/compare/deepseek-v4-1-flash-1017/glm-5-2 · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/deepseek-v4-1-flash-1017/glm-5-2?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill