Claude Instant 1.2vsGLM-5.2
Claude Instant 1.2 | GLM-5.2 | |
|---|---|---|
| Specifications | ||
ParametersA rough measure of how big the model is. More parameters usually means more capable and more expensive to run, though it is a poor guide on its own — a smaller, newer model often beats a larger, older one. | — | 744B |
Context windowHow much text the model can hold in mind at once — your question, any documents you attach, the conversation so far, and its own reply. Go past it and the earliest part falls out of view. | 100k | 1M |
| API pricingUSD per 1M tokens · lower wins | ||
Input priceWhat you pay for everything you send the model — your question, plus any documents or earlier conversation you include with it. | — | $1.40 |
Output priceWhat you pay for the text the model writes back. It is normally the dearer half: producing an answer costs more than reading one. | — | $4.40 |
Cached input priceA reduced rate for text you send over and over. If every request starts with the same instructions or the same document, the provider keeps a copy ready and charges less to read it again. | — | $0.26 |
| BenchmarksPublished by one model only | ||
BullshitBench v2Nonsense detection — Given a confidently-worded but nonsensical prompt, does the AI spot that it makes no sense and push back — instead of playing along and inventing an answer? The score is how often it clearly called out the nonsense. Higher is better. | — | 31% |
SWE-Bench ProAgentic coding — Can the AI fix real bugs in real software? It's handed actual problems from open-source projects and has to write code that genuinely solves them. Higher is better. | — | 62.1% |
CursorBench v3.2Agentic coding — Cursor's own test of harder, real-world coding tasks inside a code editor, on the refreshed v3.2 task set. Scores aren't comparable with v3.1. Higher is better. | — | 55% |
CursorBench v3.1Agentic coding — Cursor's own test of harder, real-world coding tasks inside a code editor. Higher is better. | — | 54.6% |
DeepSWE 1.1Agentic coding — Artificial Analysis' independent test of deep, agentic software-engineering work — the AI has to plan and carry out substantial coding tasks end to end. (Version 1.1 of the test.) Higher is better. | — | 44% |
Next.js EvalsNext.js coding — Vercel's open eval of how well AI coding agents build and migrate real Next.js apps — measured as the share of tasks the agent completes successfully. Higher is better. | — | 88% |
HumanEvalFunction synthesis — 164 small Python problems: the AI is given a function's description and has to write the working function. This was the coding benchmark of the GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 era, before the field moved to fixing real bugs in real repositories. Higher is better. | 58.7% | — |
Frontier-Bench v0.1Agentic computer work — A hard, ever-evolving set of real computer tasks — coding, system administration, data work, and more — that an AI agent has to complete on its own. Run by the Harbor / Laude Institute team as the successor to Terminal-Bench (v0.1 is the first release of the task set). The score is the share of tasks solved. Higher is better. | — | 5.1% |
Terminal-Bench 2.1Agentic terminal coding — Can the AI work in a command-line terminal — running commands and finishing technical setup tasks the way a developer would? Higher is better. | — | 81% |
Humanity's Last Exam · no toolsMultidisciplinary reasoning — Humanity's Last Exam — extremely hard expert questions across many subjects, written so you can't just look up the answer. “No tools” means the AI answers on its own. Higher is better. | — | 40.5% |
Humanity's Last Exam · with toolsMultidisciplinary reasoning — Humanity's Last Exam — extremely hard expert questions across many subjects. “With tools” means the AI is allowed to search the web or run code while answering. Higher is better. | — | 54.7% |
GPQA DiamondScience — Graduate-level science questions in biology, physics, and chemistry — hard enough that subject-matter PhDs score around 65%. Higher is better. | — | 91.2% |
GSM8KGrade-school math — Grade-school maths word problems that take a few steps of arithmetic to work through. It separated the models of 2022 and 2023 sharply, then saturated. One caveat on the historical numbers: OpenAI included part of the GSM8K training set in GPT-4's pre-training mix, so GPT-4's score is not a clean few-shot result. Higher is better. | 86.7% | — |
GDPval-AA v2Knowledge work — economically valuable knowledge work (v2, re-based Elo) | — | 1514 |
Arena Elo (Code)Community preference (code) — Like the text arena, but people vote on which AI writes better code. The votes become a chess-style Elo rating on arena.ai. Higher is better. | — | 1587 |
| Overview | ||
| Company | Anthropic | Z.ai |
| Release date | Aug 9 2023 | Jun 16 2026 |
| Access | Proprietary | Open Weight |
Frequently asked questions
Claude Instant 1.2 and GLM-5.2 don't publish scores on any of the same benchmarks, so there's no direct head-to-head comparison. Only GLM-5.2 has a verified first-party API price: $1.40 per million input tokens and $4.40 per million output tokens. No pay-as-you-go API rate is tracked for Claude Instant 1.2. Claude Instant 1.2 shipped 1042 days before GLM-5.2, so benchmark comparisons should account for the intervening progress.
Context windows are 100k (Claude Instant 1.2) vs 1M (GLM-5.2). Claude Instant 1.2 is proprietary, while GLM-5.2 is open weight.
Direct benchmark comparisons are unavailable — Claude Instant 1.2 and GLM-5.2 don't publish scores on any of the same benchmarks.
Claude Instant 1.2 was released by Anthropic on Aug 9 2023.
GLM-5.2 was released by Z.ai on Jun 16 2026.
Only GLM-5.2 has a verified first-party API price: $1.40 per million input tokens and $4.40 per million output tokens. No pay-as-you-go API rate is tracked for Claude Instant 1.2. Rates are pay-as-you-go API prices verified on August 18, 2026.
Claude Instant 1.2 has a 100k context window; GLM-5.2 has 1M.
Claude Instant 1.2 is a proprietary model released by Anthropic. GLM-5.2 is an open weight model released by Z.ai.
Other comparisons
Claude Instant 1.2vsGPT-5.6-CyberGLM-5.2vsGPT-5.6-CyberClaude Instant 1.2vsGemini 3.7 FlashGLM-5.2vsGemini 3.7 FlashClaude Instant 1.2vsMuse GlimmerGLM-5.2vsMuse GlimmerClaude Instant 1.2vsGrok 4.6GLM-5.2vsGrok 4.6Claude Instant 1.2vsDeepSeek-V4-Pro-0813GLM-5.2vsDeepSeek-V4-Pro-0813Claude Instant 1.2vsMistral Medium 3.5GLM-5.2vsMistral Medium 3.5