Compare AI models
| Specifications | ||
Context windowHow much information the model can work with in one request, measured in tokens — pieces of words or other data. This includes your question, attachments, conversation and reply. Limits can vary by model variant and provider. | 400k | 200k |
| 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. | — | $0.60 |
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. | — | $2.20 |
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. | — | $0.11 |
Cheapest inputLowest input rate across every provider on OpenRouter, the lab included. The cheapest endpoint may run a quantised build or a shorter context — see "Available from" on the model page. | — | $0.32DeepInfra |
Cheapest outputLowest output rate across every provider on OpenRouter, the lab included. May come from a different provider than the cheapest input. | — | $1.40DeepInfra |
| — | $168DeepInfra · fp4 | |
| These models have no shared benchmark scores. | ||
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. | 45% | — |
SWE-Bench VerifiedCoding — Real coding tasks pulled from open-source projects — the AI has to find and fix actual bugs. A human-checked version of the original SWE-Bench. Higher is better. | — | 73.8% |
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. | 46% | — |
LiveCodeBenchCompetitive coding — Coding problems published so recently the AI can't have seen them in training — a contamination-free test of raw programming skill. Higher is better. | — | 84.9% |
Terminal-Bench 2.0Agentic terminal coding — Can the AI work in a command-line terminal — running commands and finishing technical setup tasks the way a developer would? (Version 2.0 of the test.) Higher is better. | — | 41% |
BrowseCompWeb browsing — Can the AI browse the web and track down hard-to-find answers? Higher is better. | — | 52% |
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. | — | 24.8% |
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. | — | 42.8% |
GPQA DiamondScience — Graduate-level science questions in biology, physics, and chemistry — hard enough that subject-matter PhDs score around 65%. Higher is better. | — | 85.7% |
| Overview | ||
| Company | OpenAI | Z.ai |
| Release date | Dec 18 2025 | Dec 22 2025 |
| Access | Closed | Open Weight |
| Model details | View model | View model |
Other comparisons
GPT-5.2-CodexvsClaude Fable 5.2GLM-4.7vsClaude Fable 5.2GPT-5.2-CodexvsGemini 4 CarbonGLM-4.7vsGemini 4 CarbonGPT-5.2-CodexvsMuse EmberGLM-4.7vsMuse EmberGPT-5.2-CodexvsGrok 4.7GLM-4.7vsGrok 4.7GPT-5.2-CodexvsDeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017GLM-4.7vsDeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017GPT-5.2-CodexvsMistral Large 4GLM-4.7vsMistral Large 4Frequently asked questions
GPT-5.2-Codex and GLM-4.7 don't publish scores on any of the same benchmarks, so there's no direct head-to-head comparison. Only GLM-4.7 has a verified first-party price for an available API: $0.60 per million input tokens and $2.20 per million output tokens. No currently available pay-as-you-go API rate is tracked for GPT-5.2-Codex. GPT-5.2-Codex shipped 4 days before GLM-4.7, so benchmark comparisons should account for the intervening progress.
Context windows are 400k (GPT-5.2-Codex) vs 200k (GLM-4.7). GPT-5.2-Codex is closed, while GLM-4.7 is open weight.
Direct benchmark comparisons are unavailable — GPT-5.2-Codex and GLM-4.7 don't publish scores on any of the same benchmarks.