GLM-5.2 (max) vs HyperNova 60B 2605
Which is better for the money: GLM-5.2 (max) by Z AI or HyperNova 60B 2605 by Multiverse Computing? Intelligence, total benchmark cost, and end-to-end time from Artificial Analysis & other sources, snapshot 2026-08-07.
Trade-off
Verdict
Depends on your budget
GLM-5.2 (max) scores 34.3 points higher (52.6 vs 18.3) but costs 24× as much to run the benchmark ($904 vs $37.5; premium vs budget cost classes). They are not alternatives at one budget: pick GLM-5.2 (max) when you need intelligence above 18.3, and HyperNova 60B 2605 when 18.3 is enough.
| Metric | GLM-5.2 (max) | HyperNova 60B 2605 | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 52.6 | 18.3 | −65.2% HyperNova 60B 2605 is 65.2% less intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $904.12 | $37.50 | −95.9% HyperNova 60B 2605 is 95.9% cheaper |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 21.65s | 6.93s | −68.0% HyperNova 60B 2605 is 68.0% faster |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $1.30 / $4.18 | $0.04 / $0.14 | |
| Input modalities | Not reported | Not reported |
HyperNova 60B 2605 vs GLM-5.2 (max): 65.2% less intelligence, 95.9% less cost to run the AA benchmark, and 68.0% faster end-to-end.
Today's Pareto frontier
Against the frontier
- GLM-5.2 (max) is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, Muse Spark 1.2 (xhigh) scores 56.80 for $639.
- HyperNova 60B 2605 is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, GPT-5.6 Luna (medium) scores 38.90 for $21.1.
GLM-5.2 (max)HyperNova 60B 2605Today's Pareto frontierEvery other model
Matchup
Compare something else
Agents:
Accept: text/markdown or ?format=md returns this page as Markdown. JSON: /api/v1/compare/glm-5-2/hypernova-60b · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/glm-5-2/hypernova-60b?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill