DeepSeek V3.2 vs GLM 5
DeepSeek V3.2 (released Dec 2025) and GLM 5 (released Feb 2026) are both text-only models built for coding and agentic work, but they sit at opposite ends of the price-performance curve. GLM 5 costs roughly 2.6x more per input token and defaults to reasoning mode on; DeepSeek V3.2 is cheaper and leaves reasoning off by default. Both run on OpenKey with one API key and a flat 3% fee over provider list price.
Spec vs spec
| Spec | DeepSeek V3.2 | GLM 5 |
|---|---|---|
| Context window | 131K | 203K |
| Max output | 64K | — |
| Input modalities | text | text |
| Output modalities | text | text |
| Released | Dec 1, 2025 | Feb 11, 2026 |
| Reasoning | optional | optional |
Pricing
Per 1M tokens. Provider price plus the flat 3% fee — the sum is what you pay.
deepseek/deepseek-v3.2
Input · 1M tokens
$0.229 + 3%$0.236
Output · 1M tokens
$0.343 + 3%$0.353
Cache read · 1M tokens
$0.023 + 3%$0.024
FEE — FLAT, EVERY MODEL3%
z-ai/glm-5
Input · 1M tokens
$0.600 + 3%$0.618
Output · 1M tokens
$1.92 + 3%$1.98
Cache read · 1M tokens
$0.120 + 3%$0.124
FEE — FLAT, EVERY MODEL3%
One workload, priced on both
10M input + 2M output tokens at each model's price, flat 3% fee included.
deepseek/deepseek-v3.2Cheaper
$3.06
$2.97 provider + 3%
z-ai/glm-5
$10.14
$9.84 provider + 3%
Benchmarks
Design Arena categories where both models have results. Higher Elo and lower rank win.
| DeepSeek V3.2 | GLM 5 | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Category | Elo | Rank | Elo | Rank |
| 3D | 1210 | #41 | 1307 | #15 |
| ASCII art | 1129 | #42 | 1192 | #26 |
| Code | 1213 | #48 | 1295 | #16 |
| Data viz | 1203 | #48 | 1269 | #22 |
| Game dev | 1197 | #50 | 1299 | #15 |
| SVG | 1089 | #54 | 1225 | #19 |
| UI components | 1203 | #47 | 1287 | #21 |
| Websites | 1217 | #46 | 1290 | #18 |
Head-to-head preference voting. How we filter and rank
Pricing math
DeepSeek V3.2 costs $0.2288/M input and $0.3432/M output from the provider; on OpenKey that's $0.235664/M input and $0.353496/M output ($0.2288 x 1.03, $0.3432 x 1.03). GLM 5 costs $0.60/M input and $1.92/M output from the provider, or $0.618/M and $1.9776/M on OpenKey (both x 1.03).
For a 10M-input/2M-output workload, DeepSeek V3.2 runs $2.97 total versus $9.84 for GLM 5 — GLM 5 costs about 3.3x more for the same workload. The input price ratio alone is 0.38, meaning DeepSeek V3.2's input tokens cost 38% of what GLM 5's do. If you're processing large volumes of text and cost per token matters more than top-rank benchmark scores, DeepSeek V3.2 is the clear pick. GLM 5 also has cache-read pricing at $0.12/M versus DeepSeek V3.2's $0.02288/M, so repeated-context workloads widen the gap further.
Coding and agent benchmarks
GLM 5 has Design Arena scores in the 'agents' arena that DeepSeek V3.2 lacks entirely: rank 3 in Godot game dev (elo 1237, 54.8% win rate), rank 6 in Android native (elo 1244, 62% win rate), rank 10 in mobile apps (elo 1222, 53.1% win rate), and rank 13 in fullstack (elo 1190, 52.8% win rate).
In the shared 'models' arena, GLM 5 outranks DeepSeek V3.2 in every category: code categories (rank 16 vs. 48), game dev (rank 15 vs. 50), UI components (rank 21 vs. 47), website (rank 18 vs. 46), data viz (rank 22 vs. 48), and SVG (rank 19 vs. 54). DeepSeek V3.2's best rank is 3D at 41; GLM 5's is 3D at 15. If agentic coding quality is the bottleneck, GLM 5 is ahead on every measured category.
Context and long-document work
GLM 5 supports a 202,752-token context window; DeepSeek V3.2 supports 131,072 tokens. The context ratio is 0.65 — DeepSeek V3.2's window is 65% the size of GLM 5's. Neither publishes a max completion token limit for GLM 5 in this data; DeepSeek V3.2 caps completions at 64,000 tokens. For document sets or codebases that push past 131K tokens, GLM 5 is the only option here. For most single-file or moderate-repo tasks, both windows are more than enough.
Reasoning defaults
GLM 5 has reasoning enabled by default; DeepSeek V3.2 does not. Neither model makes reasoning mandatory, so both are toggleable, but if you're calling GLM 5 without configuring parameters, expect reasoning tokens in the output (and the cost that comes with them) unless you turn it off explicitly. DeepSeek V3.2 stays lean by default, which partly explains the pricing gap on top of the base per-token rates.
Which model for which job
| Use case | Pick | Why |
|---|---|---|
| High-volume text generation | DeepSeek V3.2 | Costs $2.97 vs $9.84 for the same 10M-in/2M-out workload |
| Fullstack or mobile agent coding | GLM 5 | Ranks 3rd-13th across Android native, Godot, mobile apps, and fullstack agent categories DeepSeek V3.2 isn't scored in |
| Long-document or large-repo context | GLM 5 | 202,752-token window vs. 131,072 for DeepSeek V3.2 |
| Cost-sensitive API pipelines | DeepSeek V3.2 | Input tokens cost 38% of GLM 5's rate |
| Repeated-context / caching workloads | DeepSeek V3.2 | Cache-read price is $0.02288/M vs. $0.12/M for GLM 5 |
| General code-quality tasks (UI, SVG, game dev) | GLM 5 | Outranks DeepSeek V3.2 in every shared Design Arena model category |
Questions
- Which model is cheaper for a typical workload?
- DeepSeek V3.2, by a lot. A 10M-input/2M-output workload costs $2.97 on DeepSeek V3.2 versus $9.84 on GLM 5 — GLM 5 is about 3.3x more expensive for identical volume.
- Does GLM 5 actually outperform DeepSeek V3.2 on coding?
- In every shared Design Arena category, yes. GLM 5 ranks 16th in code categories versus DeepSeek V3.2's 48th, and 15th in game dev versus 50th. GLM 5 also has agent-arena scores (e.g. rank 3 in Godot game dev) that DeepSeek V3.2 has none of.
- Which has the bigger context window?
- GLM 5, at 202,752 tokens versus DeepSeek V3.2's 131,072 tokens — a context ratio of 0.65, meaning DeepSeek V3.2 holds 65% as much context.
- Can I use both through one API key?
- Yes. Both DeepSeek V3.2 and GLM 5 are available on OpenKey with one key and a flat 3% fee over provider list price, so switching between them for cost versus capability trade-offs doesn't require separate accounts.