It seems to really be a nice step-up and is getting quite close to the frontier. I wish they'd start focusing on the reasoning efficiency now, though. I have a simple (relatively) test task to evaluate LLMs: writing a simple math evaluator library in Nim (it's about 400-600 lines total max), and GLM 5.2 (xhigh which maps to max effort) spent over 15 minutes (!) reasoning, spending about 45k tokens, before it finally wrote the first file.
I know it's hard to improve on that, but now that their models are good enough at raw intelligence, I think this should become a higher priority task.
Currently on https://artificialanalysis.ai/#output-tokens GPT 5.5 xhigh spends 16k tokens total on average, GPT 5.5 high is 10k, Fable 5 33k, Opus 4.8 41k, GLM 5.2 is 42k. GPT 5.5 is extremely reasoning efficient.
Of course if you convert those values to actual request cost, GLM 5.2 will probably beat GPT 5.5/Opus 4.8, but speed matters for a lot of people, I think.
GLM 5.2 Max = Opus 4.8 Max in thinking behavior. The thinking chain is so similar, and so is the amount of token usage on the output.
If you want reasonable token usage, you need to run it GLM 5.2 at High. There is little drop in quality from Max to High (for most tasks). And it cuts token usage by 2 a 2.5x. GLM 5.2, Max is really something you only need for complex tasks.
In essence, GLM 5.2 is Opus 4.8 its little brother, at a way, WAY cheaper price.
There has been really no training on Opus models going on, really, none i tell you! /sarcasm
Are there any indications that this will be possible? Consumer hardware will continue getting better but I can't see 512GB RAM in a MacBook Pro any time soon. I'm hoping linear attention techniques plus MoE will make breakthroughs in size/compression and throughput.
Well, we're probably not going to be running frontier models anytime soon, but I think the general assumption is smaller models will continue to improve until they're sufficiently good frontier models aren't needed.
There's potentially also augmentation through tools, harnesses and RAG to help boost how well they work without tons of parameters.
In the last ten years laptop memory footprints have, what, doubled at the low end? Smallest MacBook Pro in 2016 was 8GB, smallest is 16GB today? Max I think has gone up 8x meanwhile, 16 to 128?
I wonder if there's a bit of a chicken-and-egg issue where there wasn't much that demanded 10x the RAM, so there wasn't much pressure to develop more or increase production to support it at consumer prices.
There's wayyyyyyy more demand for memory generally now, so assuming it's not a demand bubble that pops rapidly, I'd expect the new normal to end up at a much higher baseline. 512GB would be 4x greater than today's max, so even with the relatively slow last 10 years development pace, give it five years max?
The new Macbook Neo is 8GB. I think that if we are lucky, the huge RAM demand right now means new factory buildouts which eventually means more supply and prices go back down, and capacity begins to go up. This level of demand was just not anticipated by anyone.
so around US$150k which is Small/Medium-Enterprise territory already, but who knows when it will hit "reasonable" home consumer territory
I think there's hope future generations of unified memory machines may get this sort of memory availability when new fabs open in then next couple of years and then ramp up production for a few years afterwards - that makes ~2030s credible at this point, but nobody can really predict the market that far ahead
> I think there's hope future generations of unified memory machines may get this sort of memory availability
I hope you're right. This is a very exciting idea. The weights are out there. The demand is astronomical. The manufacturers just need to make it happen.
there are cheaper ways to do it. not like, consumer-cheap, but I'm setting up a rig for 80% cheaper than that.
I'm a tad worried about triggering a run on the particular hardware I'm buying though so I'll leave it vague here, but hit me up on Discord if you're curious.
distillation of thinking models is not particularly effective - both "Open"AI and Misanthropic don't show you the real chain of thought, only its severely downscaled version. both do everything in their power to combat such outrageous copyright infringement, so the bulk of unethically scrapped data the Chinese have is from several generations ago.
It is quite likely that the intermediate tokens don’t have ‘semantic import’[0]
There are methods like Habitual Reasoning Distillation or Inverted Reasoning Traces [1] that can help.
While there are reasons to hide the intermediate tokens from a IP protection stand point, there is also a need to hide more effective and efficient generating that doesn’t fit the R1 claims of an aha moment that has been debunked, but is a consumer expectation.
While hidden intermediate tokens do increase the difficulty, it is not a from barrier in itself, especially as they are billed, given information about their length.
For Claude models at least, you can tell to just manually think in the output and it works fine. I do it reguralrly because for creative writing and summarization, they seem to believe they don't need to think at all, and get way worse results.
this helps so much. i do it too. with some of the newer frontier models its unclear if you can even turn it off in the first party chat apps. havent compared api semantics yet.
Chinese distillation attacks are about as unethical as Robin Hood stealing from the rich to give to the poor. The real unethical scraping was done by Anthropic to train Claude.
To be clear, if Anthropic was using totally licensed data, I'd be sympathetic to these claims. But if you're going to pirate the world's creativity you'd better be willing to gimme dat shit for free[0].
I don’t understand why there isn’t public dataset for reasoning that can be improved by humans/llms like Wikipedia (ie with auto judging contributions etc).
For reasoning a manually-curated dataset is too small; you need to be able to automatically generate vast volumes of synthetic reasoning data with provably correct answers. That's presumably why Claude and GPT are so good at using Lean (the theorem prover), because they get fed a bunch of synthetic, verifiably correct training data.
The companies that did copyright infringement and unethically scrapped data think that copyright infringement and unethically scrapping data is wrong and needs to be stopped.
Though only in particular situations, like when it’s done to them and not when they do it. Cause they have the power and are morally right and know better than you. And if you question this at all, well you’re a threat to American values and a supporter of the Chinese and leading to the break down of Democracy.
This isn’t a type of reasoning argument or manipulation tactic used by the rich throughout history to trick the naive and gullible masses or anything like that. Trust me, I’m rich and I’m morally right. /sarcasm
It’s been amazing to see the arc of tech people going from “evil Disney, copyright is an abomination, information wants to be free” to “OMG copyright is inviolable and AI is taking money out of Plato’s descendants’ pockets!”
> taking money out of Plato’s descendants’ pockets
Yeah, remind me - is it Plato's descendants that people are concerned about here, or is it every single author who had any work in Anna's Archive, any work published online, any work published on github, etc?
I think that people are probably upset about the harm to living people who had their work stolen by Meta and other LLM companies - regardless of license, terms of use, or any other attempted protection.
With such ridiculously long thinking traces I'm surprised max outperforms high. After all, performance falls off a hill after a certain amount of context, and long thinking traces can fill that up really quickly.
> It seems to really be a nice step-up and is getting quite close to the frontier.
IMHO it's already surpassed them. I vastly prefer my personal GLM and OpenCode setup to the Claude Code and Opus one that I have to use at work. The former makes way fewer StackOverflow brogrammer-tier mistakes and is considerably better at following instructions. The harness UX is also vastly superior as it doesn't ignore, randomly change, or incorrectly report settings.
Maybe it's the harness and I'd have even greater success with OpenCode and Anthropic, but I think it safe to say that Anthropic's moat is evaporating.
In this paper they nerf an LLMs ability to emit waffling thinking tokens like "wait", "but", "alternatively", and the models (they're old, small models in the paper) terminate reasoning faster and perform better. I bet Anthropic is tuning this on their backend.
I usually have Claude build a plan first, then I put it into an XML file it updates with phases, usually we talk about some of those tasks, and then once its good and I like it, I have Claude implement the plan.
Another thing I tell Claude to do is to not guess, but look at documentation, it messes up a lot less, might use some tokens reading docs, but at least it has a higher success rate code wise.
Apparently because of how Claude is trained, even the system level prompts go through as XML, it works better with XML "prompting" so I figured I could have it write plans in XML. I need to update my ticketing tool to output XML maybe by default.
Comments later in thread say markdown works just as fine and that it’s more important to organize your plan into sections.
Also just think about it, why would a model trained on the world’s corpus of text (that isnt formatted in xml) perform better with XML? It would be a better study if that post tested markdown, org, xml, json, etc. 10 times to see if their is a difference
One reason to use XML-like formatting is that it makes the beginning and end of sections explicit. This is less of an issue when the model is generating text but can still be helpful when using templated prompts.
Seriously. Whenever I read the thinking output I get mad and turn down effort to medium or low.
Just output the code and we’ll work through it!
I feel similarly about having codex review claude’s plans. I don’t think I’ve ever seen it catch a major issue. It just points out things that would have inevitably been addressed during implementation anyway.
A lot of times this is how humans work. Just start 'putting words on paper', 'think by doing', etc. sometimes it's more efficient to see why something won't work after writing a bit of it, and sometimes you get lucky and it works right off the bat
Could it be possible, these firms are optimizing for two things: a) Better performance. b) Gathering data from you to further improve performance later. I've also found the huge amount of planning rather than iteration frustrating. I've felt like I'm teaching a junior!
I think they simply optimize around E2E benchmarks, none of those benchmarks is designed as multi turn assistance to the user, but going from a prompt straight to the final solution.
Exactly. How can "we" develop and encourage benchmarks for multi-turn user assistance?
That is what I want.
I feel like the models and harnesses push much too hard against this workflow -- that they push you towards letting go and vibe coding, with only your discipline (and desire for a quality and maintainable product) holding it back.
I think they are optimizing for one-shot performance because that will drive usage. They can’t afford to look bad in the benchmarks. And if that means consuming an order of magnitude more tokens, well, that’s good for business, too.
I've been having success with Opus but you REALLY have to tame it. Long prompts that list what files to look at, relationships between entities, etc... I went from regularly hitting my daily limit to almost never hitting it. Oh, and also I was being lazy with small changes and stopping that helped a lot too. As you said, it gets in these loops where it's just churning and if you don't stop it it can go on for way too long.
That's interesting. I gave nearly the same task to Gemma4 31b as a test yesterday. Write a symbolic math engine in Typescript that can perform evaluation and simple expression reductions over +-/*(). It performed the task correctly with minimal reasoning - much fewer reasoning tokens than output tokens.
Tbh, so what? I googled "symbolic math engine in Typescript that can perform evaluation and simple expression reductions over +-/*()" and got what looks to be viable answers without using any AI model at all. Reciting well established things from memory isn't terribly interesting. Show it a novel codebase and have it implement something within it.
> Of course if you convert those values to actual request cost, GLM 5.2 will probably beat GPT 5.5/Opus 4.8, but speed matters for a lot of people, I think.
GLM5.2 ends up being far more expensive than I thought it would be when I tried it on openrouter. I ground through $5 USD worth of tokens quite quickly.
I agree. I've noticed that it is quite smart but it has a tendency to doubt itself and overthink. I monitor its internal dialogue and prod it when it does this. They need to optimize the chain of thought early stopping.
I have a script that ranks these based on codingindex from Artificial Analysis.
All it does is pull a json from their main table page and parses it with the fields I care about (coding).
There used to be a mailing list associated with it but eh ... there wasn't much interest. I use the script every day though.
Current partial output
score age size name
47.1 58 large Kimi K2.6
47.5 54 large DeepSeek V4 Pro (Reasoning, Max Effort)
47.5 70 - Muse Spark
47.6 132 - Claude Opus 4.6 (Non-reasoning, High Effort)
47.8 205 - Claude Opus 4.5 (Reasoning)
48.1 132 - Claude Opus 4.6 (Adaptive Reasoning, Max Effort)
48.6 55 - GPT-5.5 (Non-reasoning)
48.7 188 - GPT-5.2 (xhigh)
50.1 29 - Qwen3.7 Max
50.7 1 large GLM-5.2 (max)
50.9 120 - Claude Sonnet 4.6 (Adaptive Reasoning, Max Effort)
51.5 92 - GPT-5.4 mini (xhigh)
52.1 55 - GPT-5.5 (low)
52.5 62 - Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive Reasoning, Max Effort)
53.1 132 - GPT-5.3 Codex (xhigh)
53.1 62 - Claude Opus 4.7 (Non-reasoning, High Effort)
55.5 118 - Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
56.2 55 - GPT-5.5 (medium)
56.7 20 - Claude Opus 4.8 (Adaptive Reasoning, Max Effort)
57.2 104 - GPT-5.4 (xhigh)
58.5 55 - GPT-5.5 (high)
59.1 55 - GPT-5.5 (xhigh)
62 8 - Claude Fable 5 (Adaptive Reasoning, Max Effort, Opus 4.8 Fallback)
* open models are on about a 4-7 month lag right now depending on how you want to measure it
* if this keeps up, you might see an open-weights model doing claude fable 5 level work before the new year.
if people sign up for the free mailing list (that just does this) I'll go and put it back on ... emails when new model evals drop - it was pretty useful.
rank score age size name
1 62.0 8 - Claude Fable 5 (Adaptive Reasoning, Max Effort, Opus 4.8 Fallback)
2 59.1 55 - GPT-5.5 (xhigh)
3 58.5 55 - GPT-5.5 (high)
4 57.2 104 - GPT-5.4 (xhigh)
5 56.7 20 - Claude Opus 4.8 (Adaptive Reasoning, Max Effort)
6 55.5 118 - Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
7 53.1 62 - Claude Opus 4.7 (Non-reasoning, High Effort)
8 53.1 132 - GPT-5.3 Codex (xhigh)
9 52.5 62 - Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive Reasoning, Max Effort)
10 51.5 92 - GPT-5.4 mini (xhigh)
11 50.9 120 - Claude Sonnet 4.6 (Adaptive Reasoning, Max Effort)
12 50.7 1 large GLM-5.2 (max)
13 50.1 29 - Qwen3.7 Max
14 48.7 188 - GPT-5.2 (xhigh)
15 48.1 132 - Claude Opus 4.6 (Adaptive Reasoning, Max Effort)
16 47.8 205 - Claude Opus 4.5 (Reasoning)
17 47.6 132 - Claude Opus 4.6 (Non-reasoning, High Effort)
18 47.5 70 - Muse Spark
19 47.5 54 large DeepSeek V4 Pro (Reasoning, Max Effort)
20 47.1 58 large Kimi K2.6
21 47.1 29 - Gemini 3.5 Flash (minimal)
22 46.7 449 - Gemini 2.5 Pro Preview (Mar' 25)
23 46.5 211 - Gemini 3 Pro Preview (high)
24 46.5 16 - Qwen3.7 Plus
25 46.4 120 - Claude Sonnet 4.6 (Non-reasoning, High Effort)
26 45.6 5 large Kimi K2.7 Code
27 45.6 104 - GPT-5.4 (low)
28 45.5 56 large MiMo-V2.5-Pro
29 45.1 43 - GPT-5.5 Instant (May 2026)
30 45.0 29 - Gemini 3.5 Flash (high)
31 44.9 58 - Qwen3.6 Max Preview
32 44.7 216 - GPT-5.1 (high)
33 44.2 188 - GPT-5.2 (medium)
34 44.2 126 large GLM-5 (Reasoning)
35 43.9 92 - GPT-5.4 nano (xhigh)
36 43.4 71 large GLM-5.1 (Reasoning)
37 43.4 16 large MiniMax-M3
38 43.2 54 large DeepSeek V4 Pro (Reasoning, High Effort)
39 43.0 188 - GPT-5.2 Codex (xhigh)
40 42.9 76 - Qwen3.6 Plus
41 42.9 205 - Claude Opus 4.5 (Non-reasoning)
42 42.6 182 - Gemini 3 Flash Preview (Reasoning)
43 42.2 99 - Grok 4.20 0309 (Reasoning)
44 42.1 56 large MiMo-V2.5
45 41.9 91 large MiniMax-M2.7
46 41.4 91 - MiMo-V2-Pro
47 41.3 121 large Qwen3.5 397B A17B (Reasoning)
48 41.0 48 - Grok 4.3 (high)
49 40.5 71 - Grok 4.20 0309 v2 (Reasoning)
50 40.5 342 - Grok 4
51 39.8 54 large DeepSeek V4 Flash (Reasoning, High Effort)
A longer curated list based on kristopolous’ list, with more models included. For each model, I kept only the two highest-scoring entries. I used DeepSeek V4 Flash as the cutoff, since I consider it the lowest acceptable model that is still locally deployable.
Surprised to see MiniMax M3 so low on that list, not really my experience, I found it smarter than Gemini for a lot of things, that's for sure.
Also surprised to see Gemini 3.1 ranked that high there. It remains IMHO blatantly incompetent for tool use even in their own harnesses, so I can only assume this benchmark isn't ranking workflow things very high. Gemini can write code just fine. It just can't work well as an agent.
GLM 5.2 and Qwen3.7 max were from my experience fairly expensive to use on a per token price and hard to argue in favour of when the SOTA coding plans have a fixed price that makes them potentially more cost effective. (Yes I know z.ai has a coding plan but I've heard reliability nightmare stories, and it's not very cheap)
DeepSeek is clearly the best value for $$. With the right harness and prompting.
- GPT 5.5 consistently the best, an opinion who gets me constant downvotes here by the Anthropic Marketeer strike force...
- China is going to eat the US lunch on AI
- What have European universities and companies been doing?
Its like if, on a parallel past/future, Nikola Tesla and
Edison would have created flying Cyberpunk machines,
while Europeans researchers, would be getting together to
request EU funds, for investigation on how to
breed faster horses.
- If Zuckerberg could be fired, after spending
a total of $235 billion on AI and having
NOTHING to show for...should he be fired?
None of these models come from universities, European or otherwise.
Mistral is clearly currently not competing for Frontier Model. Whether this is due to a lack of VC Funds or a lack of technical ability or the former arising from the latter would be interesting to know.
The top models are from startups. Among the FAANG only Google managed to get a Frontier model, and they litterally invented the architecture and have more money than they can possibly spend to throw at the problem. Facebook shows that even ungodly amounts of money don't get you there though.
So why did no EU based Startups succeed while two US start ups succeeded? I agree that that's a very important question the EU should ask. The Internet revolution was driven by US companies, and now AI will be as well, with Chinese Open Weights mixed in. The EU consistently can not turn its considerable economic output into fast moving tech firms.
Mistral have moved to actually trying to make money, and been relatively successful; at least if we lived in a normal world.
They've got a heap of contractors working to help industry adopt LLMs. It is just classic consulting work, and they'd look like a really great company if we weren't comparing them to literal $2T+ companies losing money hand-over-fist...
IBM doesn't do technology they do contracts. Any "technology" is marketing stunts. They hire a bunch of "fellows" outside contractors to make a thing they can be first at or whatever, do the stunt, then get a bunch of 5-10 year contracts with customers off the stunt. They then fuck it up for that length of time but still get paid due to those contracts. After that space of time the folks theyve burned have moved on, rinse repeat. Pretty easy to look back at the timeline of "firsts" they have and see the pattern.
Agree that IBM has no excuse. Specially for how long they have been trying to do AI. Although Watson was a completely different technology.
They had to start from scratch, but dont seem to have the management to be smart enough, to stop doing it in house. They could have just acquired a startup that could build a frontier model.
What is also very ironic since their whole bussiness for the last 15 years, has been buying companies a la CA Associates...
Their previous Watson branding and collapse of Watson expectations cost them one CEO, but the current CEO was part of the same team. They just dont learn....
I view Watson in the same light as Deep Blue, one-offs that brought more prestige and potential share value to IBM than necessarily "moving the needle" in the respective technology.
To be honest, living in Switzerland and speaking with peers, we're just exhausted by the constant AI hype. For a lot of us, the fact that Europe isn't frantically trying to scrape the entire internet and every book in existence for the next massive model isn't a bad thing. The big players are doing their thing, like with the nuclear arms race. We regulate a lot, too much a lot of the time, but sometimes that trickles down to other places too. A lot was done right, imo.
ETH Zurich and EPFL universities recently put out an open model called Apertus (was on the HN front page a few months back), it's not a frontier model, but they built it properly regarding copyright and data transparency.
It might look a bit slow or old-fashioned, but focusing on doing things ethically and legally feels like a much better path than just joining the race to scrape everything.
Sir, I would suggest that if Europe fails to be economically competitive, the downstream implications on European society will produce much worse outcomes than (for instance) data transparency…
Doing things with ethical intentions does not necessarily produce outcomes that are beneficial for society at large.
I'm inclined to agree with you, but you could make the same argument for exploiting natural resources and the environment. I don't think it's being done right at the moment, and it does not seem to be benefiting people as much as certain companies.
Well, is this mad dash for AI producing "outcomes that are beneficial for society at large" yet? So far it looks like its mostly producing a ton of negative externalities and wealth transfer to corrupt elites.
Also, no, abandoning ethics is not an option, what a ridiculous suggestion.
If these models ever reach the point where they are as good a programmer as a human is (and thus can self-improve completely independently), then there won't be an independent Switzerland much longer. AI race is a race for first place.
> like with the nuclear arms race
MacArthur was about to nuke the Chinese in the Korean war. China knows that nuclear weapons, AI and robotics are a matter of survival and not a nice-to-have.
Interesting...but this shows how dumb these AI are.
And they misunderstood nothing to show for as...literally nothing to show for. Yes not factually but he has nothing effectively not much that is competitive to show for so its literally true.
And had they been give this clarification then would have suddenly said: "Oh yes of course, you are absolutely right, you are correct on challenging me on that...."
Mo Bitar said something like "Meta's LLM is the one you use if you accidentially hit the wrong button in WhatsApp. Its user base is fat-finger phone users."
Understood - they're just doing other things. Maybe custom ad rewriting for a target audience or some kind of deep analytics insight into user behavior or translations that optimizes for maximizing purchasing habits over literary accuracy ... I'm just saying their incentives are elsewhere and maybe Muse is serving them well.
I mean that is the smart move here. Focus the model on optimizing the core business. For Meta, that's not coding tools.
I would imagine it will be a fundamental breakthrough, not weights alone, that are going to usher in the next generation of AI. Perhaps China will in fact make that breakthrough. They certainly seem to have a lot of eyeballs in the field right now.
I think they are already massively winning on efficiency... which is about to matter a lot as the frontier models jack up their prices in order to some day see a profit (and no, Anthropic getting massively subsidized by Elon out of spite doesn't count for long term profits).
There has really been one break-through, the actual construction of giant LLMs from the available titanic corpus of text. Even that barely involved much conceptual breakthrough, a few things maybe e.g. transformer. Basically it was a question of the accessibility of a) giant internet corpus of actual people actually saying stuff and b) adequate computing power. The witty surface training, the scaffolding for a chatbot is what made a universal stir. With this, though, we are done with revolutionary breakthroughs. Training for coding involves actual alteration of weights - and as it improves the general utility of the corresponding models will fail. In the end it will be a domain of specialized models. The improvement of this aspect via RLVR etc is what caused a general mania in the programmer milieu.
There is a lot of money in pretending that we are seeing unending revolutions.
Well Europe is famously a laggard when it comes to new tech - in parts of Switzerland, two horses were required be mounted in front to carry cars up until 1925. UK required a person to walk in front of a car and wave a red flag.
As evil as Google is as a company these days [cough disclaimer, used to work here, so biased] I can't help but think that if Gemini didn't... suck, and if they had a coding model at the same quality as GPT 5.5 or Opus 4.8 they'd be completely cleaning up purely on the basis of relative reputations of the companies.
That Google is dropping the ball so badly, or just disinterested in the coding side of things... is either a sign of incompetence, or a lack of interest in losing money in that space. I wish I knew which.
I also get the downvotes for the GPT thing, and agree with you about 5.5's quality, but TBH I don't think it's Anthropic marketing as just two other things:
1. SamA and his company has a well-deserved bad reputation and Anthropic got some early good PR for basically not being SamA.
2. Claude Code got early head space, Boris and crew basically "invented" this kind of agent, and so has first mover advantage despite its known reliability and cost issues.
3. Most people I talk to haven't even tried Codex for some reason
I downvoted you for your complaining about downvotes fwiw.
And Zuck hasn't spent that much on AI yet. Half of that is projected spending for 2026.
As to whether it's all for nothing, Q1 2026 revenue was up 33% over Q1 last year, driven largely by...better AI-driven ad targeting. So the spending doesn't seem that crazy to me.
Note that AA's coding index is only made up of two benchmarks: Terminal-Bench Hard and SciCode. I'm skeptical that it makes a good coding index. It ranks Gemma 4 31B above Deepseek V4 Flash. Having used both of those models for a broad variety of coding tasks I would choose Deepseek every day.
add an argument (any argument) and it will be sorted as your specified. It just works as a toggle flipping the order ... so literally any string will do.
The original link has been updated accordingly with the new code.
Because it's currently 511 lines. Why would I want to scroll up to see the stuff I care about? Don't you want the relevant stuff to be right there in front of you?
But maybe you decide you want to see more. It makes perfect sense for a cli tool to output the most interesting piece of info last: then you can decide on the fly whether you want to scroll up or not.
Because programmers can’t figure out how to have a CLI that prints in a normal order, with the newest stuff on top instead of on the bottom.
Setup a fresh new large monitor. Open CLI. Run command. Watch output at the bottom of your screen. Keep watching the bottom of your screen for the rest of the day.
Sure you can tile windows and it helps but come on. Just have the command/input section in the bottom and the “output” on top. Keep the command bit on the bottom.
Seems legit. My experiments with GLM-5.2 so far have resulted in strange hallucinations in the tiniest of places. Like a wrong variable name.
It seems like it's up for the task of complex code, but those little paper-cuts are scary to me. I wouldn't trust this model for anything remotely serious.
Why aren't more people talking about this? It's literally Opus 4.7 quality stupid prices. I know providers who are offering this at unlimited tokens for $50 a month. Some are even offering API rates at 3x lower than the official ZAI api rates which are already like 10x cheaper than Opus. (Crof and Umans btw)
This is a huge blow to Anthropic/OpenAI/Google and a massive win for the rest of the world. The official API prices and speeds mean nothing for open source models.
Be careful about unofficial providers, a lot of them misconfigure models or stealth quantize them. For a while the difference between Kimi on the official API and most third party providers was 20-40%.
> Some are even offering API rates at 3x lower than the official ZAI api rates
Looking at openrouter [1], some of the cheaper offerings are for quantized models. Not sure how much intelligence is lost in quantization. And they are not 3 times cheaper. Where did you find 3x lower prices for APIs? I am considering skipping open router and using them directly for that price.
IME, unquantised -> FP8 is pretty much lossless. What matters more is having an unquantized KV cache - using an FP8 KV cache can result in a significant drop in quality.
I don't know, sounds quite similar to his rate distortion theorem (analyzing minimum number of bits/symbol you need to stay under some fixed amount of distortion). I.e. lossy compression with a maximum amount of loss. I.e. "pretty much lossless" compression.
I've seen a few articles from providers talking about KV cache quantisation, but it's not something they explicitly point out like they do with weights.
So you could end up paying more for unquantised weights, only to get silently hit with a quantised KV cache...
Neuralwatt ... When you reverse calculate the actual energy usage / price on a token basis, the gap is large.
I do not have GLM 5.2 numbers because the whole default max setting is overkill. But GLM 5.1 numbers had it at 12x cheaper then API rates. And about 2.5x more tokens vs zai their own subscription service.
Yes, its FP8 but lets be honest, do we know for sure that even zai runs at FP16? I learned a long time ago with Claude and Codex how much cheating happens on model levels, even from the big boys.
Please correct me if you have contradicting data but: Neuralwatt's price per token vs price for energy comparison doesn't seem to take into account the cost savings from cache hits that other providers offer on pure token rates. The comparison seems to assume every input token is a cache miss.
On top of that, the cloud offering doesn't seem that well-run, they randomly blocked a colleague's API key for a couple days without any heads up, had a weird rate limiting bug and they have been deprecating models without redirects with very short notice, all while taking weeks to onboard new models. I assume some of these problems would be addressed if we had an SLA/enterprise contract.
It's a promising idea though. They offer a $5 trial credit (with an aggressive rate limit) though so no harm in trying it out.
> doesn't seem to take into account the cost savings from cache hits
Absolute false information.
From my usage panel for this month:
* Total Tokens 1.1B
* Cached Tokens 1.0B 97% of prompt tokens
* Cost energy pricing $26.58
The energy pricing is higher then what i actually pay because its a mix of token billing and partial subscription (60% extra "power").
From the $50 subscription, i have about 3/4 left (4.21 of 16.0 kWh used this billing cycle). Used $5.5 in token billing.
That was running 82.0% GLM 5.1, and 18% GLM 5.2. Yes, i have been busy ;)
My actual usage if we look in dollar value was ~ $18.
For your information, that is cheaper the MiMo v2.5 Pro from Xiaomi as there i was doing around 450.000t per cent. And they have the same 75% cheaper prices like DeepSeek. MiMo has a issue with cache retention between session prompts what hurts them vs DeepSeek. Yes, DeepSeek v4 Pro is 2.5x cheaper but nowhere near GLM 5.1, and especially not GLM 5.2.
In case your wondering, zai subscription light is about 80m token / week limit. So on a token/cent price, neutralwatt is about 3x cheaper (and not 5h, week limits to maximize/frustrate).
> all while taking weeks to onboard new models.
Took them 1 day to include GLM 5.2 ... Yes, the remove old models fast because they do not have the server capacity to keep old models around.
> I assume some of these problems would be addressed if we had an SLA/enterprise contract.
Its a small team, not a big huge company. From my experience so far, seen a 2 timeouts, and sometimes slow speeds as servers get overloaded. For what i am paying for GLM ~5.1~ 5.2 ...
Your reply doesn't seem to be in good faith. Please provide your formula for calculating effective per token cost.
I am not sure why the small team argument is relevant. This is a crowded market, there are dozens if hundreds of third party inference providers in the world right now. I'm glad that's a good excuse that works on you but I'm not sure why the average user should care.
To answer the question in your first sentence - because it's VERY computationally (ha) expensive as a human being to keep up with all the options. It's also very hard to figure out how to run a model like this. There's no installer. If you really really care, which 99% of people do not, you have to google a guide, and then find out it's out of date...
I've tried a number of these, and the learning curve is very steep compared to "install Claude Code and pay $100/mo". There is no way saving me $50/month matters compared to figuring that out.
You're seriously suggesting that setting up opencode or tweaking your claude code config or etc is too much trouble to be worth saving $50 /mo? That's absurd. Doubly so when the audience in question is already using LLMs so ... just ask your existing LLM for help if it seems daunting.
I'm not just suggesting that, I'm trying to be crystal clear: it's a gap that probably cuts TAM by 95% or more. Most LLM users are not software engineers. Even those that are don't care enough to muck with their settings to try out a model. Keep in mind I'm not answering the question "Is this hard to install?" - I'm answering the question "Why aren't people talking about this?"
I would broadly agree with this (based on years of dealing directly with user-facing UX and setup steps). Small hurdles, even easy ones, create larger barriers to adoption then you’d think.
For me it's about tolerance. When I was 13, I could and would customize everything, so much that the computer repair shop told my father that their son "likely is a hacker or something".
At 40, I could easily configure claude code to use another model, even if there weren't any official guides with a bit of MITM fun, but I don't want to invest my attention / heavily use something that will most likely break in the near future.
Here are a few frictions I see that reduce reach, in order:
1) You haven't even heard of it.
2) You have to know to look for both GLM and Z.ai. These are usually in the same article when reporting about GLM is written, at least.
3) You have to understand there could be a benefit in trying it; you have to want to try it for some reason. Their own blog post puts it below Opus 4.8 in each of the three benchmarks they used.
4) You have to figure out the pricing, which isn't obviously in the blog post...
5) When I first went to Z.ai, I got an error popup (not logged in): "You do not have permission to access this resource. Please contact your administrator for assistance." I am using a personal computer...
6) When I typed something in the resultant field and pressed enter, I got "Clear Current Chat? To start a new chat, your current conversation will be discarded. Sign in to save chats"
I think today's article helped with 1 and 2, which helps their top of funnel. But they're fighting a big uphill battle.
It's also very hard to figure out how to run a model like this. There's no installer.
Yes, there is. It's called Claude Code. Point it at the HuggingFace URL and say "Download these weights and build whatever is needed to run them, then test the model."
I really miss the time when people thought that the idea of someone telling an un-sandboxed AI "do whatever is needed to X" was unrealistically stupid.
(In all seriousness, I agree this is a problem. That capability is too powerful not to take advantage of, though. Nobody needs to struggle with this sort of thing anymore, but yes, obviously, it should happen in a VM or at least a container.)
In my org everyone is extremely Claude-pilled to the point you’d think it’s the only LLM that exists, purely because it caters to non-engineers within enterprises.
I've tried Chinese open models few times before. They were fine, but they didn't come close to the benchmarks they were claiming.
Now, maybe GLM 5.2 is close to Opus 4.7, but I don't wanna keep checking them and keep finding that they're still benchmaxing and aren't at GPT (my choice) or Opus level. The boy who cried wolf, I guess.
Yes, my experience has been the same as yours. I find that the performance of open models is quite acceptable, even good, at one-off questions or small tasks. But they are quite unreliable at long horizon goals.
Wasn't this released like 2 days ago? Everyone is still evaluating and playing around with it, things like the submission is just starting to come out. Give it some days at least before jumping to conclusions, ideally weeks.
The Chinese open weight models have been ahead of Sonnet (at least for coding) for a couple months now. I tend to take benchmarks with a huge grain of salt, but in my own experience, the latest versions of Kimi, MiMo, and GLM (pre-5.2) had already surpassed Sonnet in terms of output quality for a fraction of the price.
With that said, I'm excited to try GLM 5.2 because I still end up reaching for Opus and GPT 5.5 for many tasks because the open models tend to get stuck more often on complex problems.
Do you have benchmarks or at least anecdotes to back that up? I'm not arguing with you; I would just love to see some proof that open models are getting as good as Anthropic's models.
look at benchmarks, use the model yourself. Im usually first to call BS on every chinese model that says they are as good as Opus. this is finally the first one that actually is. It is a massive jump from every other previous chinese model.
I wish I had the time to set it up and work on side projects but unfortunately life and work have been crazy (as I'm sure many here feel). That's why I asked for anecdotes about it.
My Mac Studio uses about 60–80 watts whenever I’m running a model (as measured by the system metrics), so it’s less than 2 kWh/day at full blast. Electricity is like 0.125 €/kWh, so that 24-hour period would be <0.25 €.
Not accounting hardware in my costs, since I didn’t buy my hardware for running models. Running models is just something it can do in addition to what I got it for.
imho everything but opus produces unusable code (fable was even better...), eg gpt5.5 seems to write the absolute worst code that still technically solves the problem; tbh I'd be totally willing to trade "raw intelligence" for "code taste"
more labs need to figure out whatever anthropic did to destroy everybody else on frontiercode bench
Opus has the nickname "Slopus" in a lot of circles for a reason. It can write nice code in isolation, but the way it organizes that code and its rigor in addressing edge cases/making sure things are robust leave a lot to be desired. Opus is particularly famous for having a real problem reinventing stuff that already existed in the codebase because it wanted to get to work before exploring sufficiently.
what you're describing doesn't sound like such a big deal -- it's (A) obvious during review, (B) easy to fix in a single prompt, (C) simple enough to fix manually, (D) can be mitigated with tokenmaxxing (agent review passes, prompting, subagents, etc)
regarding edge cases -- less is more in my experience, as removing is harder than adding
Artificial Analysis coding benchmark shows GLM5.1 on high pretty close to GPT5.5 xhigh in cost to run, with GPT5.5 on medium significantly less expensive. Compared to GPT5.5 medium GLM5.1xhigh is twice the cost and half the intelligence. They don't have GLM5.2 on there yet, but that'd a big gap to bridge.
I thought I was "holding it wrong" until DeepSWE came along -- personally it seems to match my own experiences pretty well. Really makes me wonder how legitimate some of the internet noise is about open models. There's surely some use cases for them, not everything needs the absolute frontier (GPT5.5 on low is awesome), but if you want to be near the frontier everyone needs to be honest about the fact that we're only talking about Opus, Fable, GPT5.5.
If that ends up being true, GPT5.5 at 70 (and presumably Fable a bit ahead of that) is still in a different league, which was partly my point. To listen to online chatter, GLM5.2 is a tectonic shift in the landscape. In reality, it's just interesting. Probably safe to bet once the DeepSWE benches all get fully updated it won't even be on the pareto frontier.
I'm not accusing anyone specifically, but I've noticed Chinese bots swamping certain YouTube channels that, for example, cover US defense industry news. They'll downplay any and all technical advances, play up China's dominance, US cowardice, etc. All very transparent. I suspect some of the online conversation about open Chinese models is driven by that. How often do you see people talking about Mistral or Trinity? Never. Because they don't play that game.
There are definitely some Chinese bots + actual people (imagine that!) who like to talk up Chinese models, I'm one of them but I like to find out how good these models really are before saying anything.
GLM definitely isn't opus level yet but it's for sure good. I think it lacks some knowledge (when coding) that the frontier models possess, which is expected given that the model is probably quite small when compared to the frontier.
But people don't say much about Mistral, probably because they are nowhere as good.. And they don't have large population behind them to actually use them.
with open models you can get a subscription with privacy, at the same cost as codex.
openai, google and anthropic subscriptions are not available with privacy.
looking at the link there it's interesting that going from cursor cli to codex cli take gpt 5.5 from 7th to 3rd. but they didn't do open model in codex.
so, hard to say it's for sure a model benchmark. maybe open models are just shit at swe agent harness...it's not the most parsimonious explanation though.
however the legal terms are different, openai reads your data. they store it for 30 days, but of course once it hits the disk you can keep as long as you like in a civil case like nyt v openai.
the same for google and anthropic. so, it's not always nice if someone is paid to read your data for safety. people upload sensitive matters, personal videos and so on.
i wouldn't prioritise it myself but you can also know that the data will all come out in discovery if you are in a legal issue. maybe that's not important, but people thought it did matter to give some protections to patient records, legal advice and therapy. you upload that to gpt and it goes into discovery.
While true - there are laws about saying you are doing the things you are doing, especially in certain regulated environments. If you are in the same country as the entity you are trusting, you have recourse if they are not living up to your trust usually in some form or another.
right, and on prem being an option is a god send, however you manage to do it
it's not a recommendation, its an option. if you don't have capital then it doesn't apply to you and move on. it wasn't an option for even people with capital.
come back in a few years when its more accessible
additionally I like that there are providers with faster special purpose processors for faster tokens/sec, all at different pricing strategies
so just pick something that matches your personal risk tolerance
DeepSWE “feels” like the right benchmark in comparison to Artificial Analysis indices and other coding benchmarks. And by their metrics, GPT-5.5 is still king in token efficiency, speed, and overall intelligence per dollar.
I gave GLM 5.2 a spin on openrouter yesterday and it was mostly fine but it racked up $5 in token use in 30 minutes of (relatively slow) work.
It's easily 4x the cost of DeepSeek V4 but I didn't actually feel the results were that much better. I had GPT 5.5 in Codex review it after it was done and there was plenty of slop to go around.
Having better luck with MiniMax M3, from a cost/benefit ratio.
I really like DeepSeek V4 Pro. It's pretty smart and I get so much usage out of it on a $20 Ollama cloud plan.
With a good harness, that's my favorite model for any personal project. I use Opus 4.8 at work because i don't have to pay for it and of course I love it, but DeepSeek is like 80% there for one tenth of the price.
AI review generally will find fault in anything. Any non-trivial code has multiple solutions with different tradeoffs. Any code can be over-engineered for theoretical edge cases and future use cases you don't need. No matter which solution you pick you can always at a minimum say that some alternative just looks and reads better.
Code is somewhat artistic. If you don't have well defined standards and priorities, the AI review cycle can spiral infinitely figuratively debating what makes art good, and your code will be no better for it.
This is correct, but I'd say there's something beyond that that's more specific about Codex + GPT models though. They've done some sort of training that makes it far more diligent about seeking out data races, unhandled errors / negative cases, and missing test coverage than the other models I've played with. It also seems more prone to testing its hypothesis.
This makes it slower to work with for prototyping, and it will, if not properly disciplined, litter your code with "legacy adapters" and "bridge code" and temporary incremental refactoring steps [arguably not terrible for work in real commercial software projects]. And it will create too many unit & integration tests, if you're not careful.
But it does, in my opinion, tend to produce more reliable software and I trust it far more than I did when I was working in Claude.
When I could afford it, I had both plans running, Claude to produce new features, and then Codex to brutally critique it battle test it, sharpen the edges, and produce better tests, and this flow went extremely well.
Now I just work with Codex and various open models.
That's what I love about it, and I wish I could find an open model that was as diligent.
Somehow it's just way more careful than the others, and also much better at empirical verification of its hypothesis, writing tests, etc. I am assuming a lot of RL done on that kind of flow, and on seeking out negative cases, failure points, race conditions.
I was surprised that GLM 5.1/5.2 are not vision models - they are text input only.
That's actually pretty uncommon these days. All of the OpenAI/Anthropic/Gemini models accept images, and so do the other leading open weight families - Gemma 4, Qwen 3.6, Kimi 2.x.
In GLM's case image input would be useful because it's a model that scores very highly for tasks like web design, but without image input it can't take a screenshot and output HTML+CSS.
Don't get me wrong, GLM is a phenomenal model, but the image thing is a bit of a gap.
Configure a subagent in your coding harness to spin up a new sub-session with any vision model for those tasks and feed the result back to the main model. No need for "one model that does everything"
That doesn’t work well in a lot of scenarios. The text LLM doesn’t know what to look for in an image before it sees a description, you might need multiple rounds of back and forth.
Vision decoding outside of the latent space of the model is lossy, but claude opus's vision isn't that great outside of UI screenshots. I mean it works in a pinch. At least in my testing, if you're looking at non UI images, there are better image to text models that can turn into a very precise documents that any LLM can easily parse.
I don't see this being such a big gap. There are some use-cases for sure but apart from UX/UI work it is not really needed. Besides, none of the frontier models can replicate actual images - the can approximate at least in my own experience.
a pretty fun and quick tests i do with vision models is to screenshot the hackernews homepage and ask the model to return a json representation of the screenshot - qwen 3.5 0.8b did surprisingly well at this.
I've been playing with this model a fair amount over the last 24 hours, and I can confirm it's quite capable, while being a little bit verbose (I've seen it reconsider things 3-4 times in thinking traces before deciding on a path forward), and not being quite as good as GPT5.5 at working through complex abstract requirements.
Honestly it's good enough that I feel comfortable recommending a Z.AI sub + a $20/mo OpenAI sub for all but the most AI pilled multi-orchestrators, or the die hard Claude fans. GLM writing + GPT reviewing/debugging feels pretty unlimited and minimally worse than just doing everything in GPT with the $200/mo plan.
This is honestly what I care bout the most now, which is how well they can write. I think we have reached a point now, if you know how to program, you can provide enough information for the models to pretty much do what you need.
What they still struggle immensely with is the writing which has too many nuances but they are truly getting better.
After having got a taste of Fable 5 for me Opus 4.8 doesn't cut it any more -- and I don't know how to put this, I don't know if it's just me, but it's rhetorical flourishes are starting to really grate on me, never mind that it is at times deliberately weasel-wordy and economical with the truth until pressed. Opus 4.8 is definitely a stronger coding agent than DeepSeek 4.0 or Kimi 2.7 succeeding where they flounder and fail but its way of expressing itself conversationally is making me reconsider my subscription …
GPT 5.5 xhigh is smarter than Fable but Fable like Opus 4.8 as well is faster and seems more “agentic”. It’s easy to test this. Build a fairly complex software with Claude(opus or Fable).
Review the commits with both Claude and GPT 5.5 Xhigh. You can see that Fable is still sloppy(er) compared to GPT. You can test it the other way around as well(drive the dev with GPT and review with GPT and Claude). You get the same result
Claude has an edge though and that’s on building more beautiful user interfaces.
I somehow take the opposite on almost everything here.
4.8 xhigh or max has a slight edge on 5.5 xhigh, for very complex logic perhaps it loses but it's just better in almost every other way, especially code quality. GPT is a slop machine outputs way too much and over-abstracts, plus its communication is so bad in comparison.
Fable was for sure a step above GPT, I tried them both against a few of the same hard tasks and it was not a small difference.
Knowing very little about how to run these, how close are we to medium or larger businesses starting to buy hardware to run models like this to keep the models local?
It’s expensive, and not as capable as the frontier models, but would have some pretty big benefits around privacy and agency.
I know of multiple businesses in Europe that have been doing that for a while with 70B models, and are upgrading hardware to run the new crop of 700B-1T models (really started around Kimi K2, but buying and hosting that kind of hardware takes time)
Not everyone is willing (or even legally able) to send their trade secrets to OpenAI or Anthropic
While certainly there are such cases with trade secrets, it's worth noting that even large banks typically have a provider like Azure or AWS onboarded.
There they can deploy these models while using the existing legal frameworks.
Nvidia will sell you an entire server rack ready for inference. Or maybe you can roll out your own Blackwell based system.
We’re approaching a world where running a primer frontier model is possible on a workstation, probably will have something under $30k that looks like a desktop for Nvidia’s next generation. It sounds expensive, until you look at your Anthropic bill.
It’s similar unit economics as could computing for the open models. You can save a ton on the expenses by buying the hardware, but it requires a lot of in-house expertise, and you get the most value if you keep the system operating around the clock. The big kink is open models are usually 2 quarters behind frontier, and your competitors are probably trying to get access to mythos.
"approaching" is doing some work there. $30K today will get you 90-144GB usable VRAM with solid system RAM and disk and CPU. A single B200 chip at 180GB is $40K. Unfortunately that is nowhere close to being able to run a 750B param model. For something like that, we're getting closer to 1TB VRAM (8+ H200/B200), and then 1M context KV cache is many more GBs on top of that.
That's a $500K-$1M+ rig as of now. That's a lot of $200 subscriptions to break even, but reasonable if you are paying Anthropic $25/M tokens. Then of course there's the power, cooling, and maintenance to consider...
But yeah, I can see if the prices come down 10x in a few years, or crater after the bubble, $30-40k might get you a decent machine.
> Unfortunately that is nowhere close to being able to run a 750B param model. For something like that, we're getting closer to 1TB VRAM
You don't have to run a model from VRAM, or even from a sizeable amount of RAM. These choices only ever make sense when serving the model at scale, to hundreds of simultaneous users or more.
For an 8-bit quant (what people call "near lossless") you are looking at something like 4xMI350X, which comes out to about $150k after adding the rest of the server. More if you go with Nvidia instead of AMD. More if you want more than maybe 8x concurrency
But prices are changing rapidly, and not for the better
This is not a new situation. This was happening also when good vision models like alexa net were coming through, especially for OCR. Companies had choice between cloud or self hosting with GPUs. But turns out, problem is usage patterns.
Your usage will peak during certain timezone work hours(even if you are a huge multinational company most of your engineers/users tend to be from only a few locations), so then you have a bunch of gpus doing nothing the rest of the day.
especially with latency sensitive stuff, this is a decades old tradeoff problem, its not unique to llms
So far there seems to be one major use-case for complete privacy, and that is legal work. You don't need top of the line models to search vast amounts of text in discovery and it needs to be completely confidential. There's quite a few lawyers over on r/localllama showing off their multi-GPU builds. Coincidentally they also have the vast funding required for it.
Unless you have genuine national security concerns, you’d be better off just negotiating a commercial agreement with privacy protections with a couple of existing vendors.
I think that's true until it isn't, which may end up being the problem. Fable/Mythos doesn't fall under the ZDR agreements with Anthropic. And I'm curious if others will follow suit.
if you can afford the investment you get stable low costs for years with better security (at least if your cyber team is good). its even better in regulated industries where some vendors might add a premium for hipaa/soc/pci dss compliance to the point its a lot cheaper to self host. for a smaller business its not worth it and you should just use a hosted open model.
> On the Intelligence vs. Cost per Task Pareto Frontier: GLM-5.2 is on the Pareto frontier of the Intelligence vs Cost per Task chart, with the lowest cost per task among models at its intelligence level. GLM-5.2 costs ~$0.46 per task, compared to GLM-5.1 ($0.25), Kimi K2.6 ($0.31), MiniMax-M3 ($0.18) and DeepSeek V4 Pro (max, $0.05)
I think they’ve just picked poor peer examples. Instead of choosing other models near 5.2 on the intelligence scale, they’ve picked some open models from further down the scale.
We have no proof in either direction, it's not like we had access to their financial numbers in details.
And the pricing itself muddies the water, as input tokens that are already in the KV cache are practically free for the provider, whereas other tokens are expensive. So they could still make money overall thanks to people having multi-turn conversation (and as such, paying multiple times for the same token), but lose money on actual compute done.
> there are lots of third party hosting services that will still run at breakeven/profit.
How can you be sure that they are making profit directly from token price, and are not billing at marginal cost (i.e. electricity price, without counting the cost of the GPUs) and aiming to make a profit later on from the valuable training data that they are collecting in the process?
You are free to believe that they are doing all this. Or you can simply believe the intuition that models are getting cheaper by the day. I can run Gemma 4 31B from my laptop today.
Sure, you can believe you intuition as much as you want, but telling strangers over the internet that they are wrong because “I trust my intuition” is… awkward.
Again, there's a difference between relying on intuition in your life (which we all do, lacking perfect information that would allow us to avoid relying on it), and telling someone they are wrong because your intuition says so.
I added it to my benchmark based on Mythos-reported bugs, and it's better than GLM 5.1, but still behind several other models, maybe most directly comparable to Qwen 3.7 Max. But, several other open models, including small self-hostable ones (Gemma 4 and Qwen 3.6), found the same number of bugs, 3 of 9. Though it also gets partial credit for reporting one bug in the right spot, but kinda misunderstanding the bug. I also added Kimi K2.7-code in the same run, and it did poorly, consistent with 2.6 performance. Anyway, there are better, cheaper, models on this particular benchmark.
(This small benchmark doesn't prove anything. It's a limited data set and each model only gets one shot at each file in the corpus. But, I find it useful for quickly sussing out if a model can reason about pretty complicated problems in code.)
GLM 5.2 is the first model we've tested that is unambiguously on par with, or better than Opus 4.6 (although as usual, we have GLM 5.2 and most other Chinese models a bit below most other benchmarks with more vulnerable test methodologies).
They're within confidence intervals of each other, but remember how much discussion there was that Opus 4.6 had been nerfed in March. We averaged samples over the entire lifetime of Opus 4.6, which likely served many different underlying checkpoints. Even the best version of Opus 4.6 was hardly an upgrade.
We find a lot of interesting anomalies with our benchmark that hold up under large sample sizes.
I think the problem is, as can also be seen on other benchmarks, is that most models nowadays are focused more and more purely on tool calling and coding.
This means, that models are losing more and more general and domain-specific knowledge.
Look at those graphs on ARtificialAnalysis, GLM-5.1 still performs similarly or better:
I still feel like models are not getting any smarter for a few months already, they just changed their training to be focused more on some areas than others, so shifting the intelligence from one place to another, not necessarily increasing the overall intelligence or "AGI" score.
Well, in that example it still seems the big players are increasing overall "intelligence" as Fable tops the list.
OpenAI has big incentives to improve general interligence as a large percentage of users use ChatGPT for support, finances, questions, etc. Not just coding.
man, i love dsv4-flash but i found its weaknesses in complex projects with multiple moving parts. tried kimi 2.6 and it understood and could work on the task. bigger is better..
I code daily with AI - real programming tasks, professional, real work, read customers, I use below 3:
- codex 5.5 medium - best results less hand holding medium speed
- opus 4.8 max - mediocre with hand holding medium speed
- glm 5.2 max - mediocre with hand holding and super slow
- composer 2.5 - mediocre with hand holding and super fast
I use all, since i run mulitple coding in parallel.
disclosure - I use rexide which we created for all these agents to run in parallel with good visibility and feedback.
Probably not. Qwen3.(5|6)-27B seems like an "accidental freak". I'm not even sure they know what they did to create that. A decent amount of the team members left after that, so unfortunately, we might not be seeing another small model that packs such a punch for a while. Hopefully the team is studying their entire training recipe for that and is able to replicate. If they are, then a 50-70B dense model might give us such capabilities...
Gemma 4 is competitive with Qwen 3.6. I had vague feelings that Qwen was better at coding tasks, based on anecdotes and public benchmarks, but I've been doing some benchmarking lately, and Gemma 4 31b is consistently beating Qwen 3.6 at the really hard stuff (finding hard security bugs, vision tasks for fixing UI layout or categorizing assets, in particular..and for vision, nothing self-hostable beats Gemma 4 12b, including 31b).
I'm still hoping for a bigger Gemma 4 version, but I think they may be worried about competing with their own hosted models, since Gemma 4 is already better than a lot of Google's proprietary models that are still available in AI Studio.
But, it is a shame that Qwen probably won't be doing more open models going forward. It is really strong for its size.
Why wait for the next few months? There are plenty of better models that you can run today locally. Qwen3.5-397B beats Qwen3.6-27B. MiniMax2.7 is a longrun horizon monster. (I haven't given 3 much of a try yet). KimiK2.6/2.7, MiMoV2.5/MiMoV2.5-Pro and GLM5.1 will wreck Qwen3.6-27B any day on any task.
So much depends on the thinking effort, it's almost meaningless to compare these models without specifying it. GLM 5.2 needs to run with max thinking effort to be competitive with the leading-edge models from OpenAI and Anthropic. That slows it down quite a bit in my experience. Meanwhile, those models have thinking-effort knobs of their own that make a big difference, especially in GPT 5.5's case.
I have been messing with an early NV4FP quant of GLM 5.2 and so far, that model in its Max setting outperforms GPT 5.5 on its default setting. But GPT 5.5 still pulls ahead once I crank up its own reasoning effort. I imagine the same is true of Opus 4.x but haven't pitted them against each other yet.
Before you go and sign up to the max plan like I did, they are obviously struggling for capacity. I'm getting API rate limited and 429'd on a simple "hello"
Just ran and scored 63 3d model generations (via code) across high and no reasoning. 3D Modeling benchmark quickly shows spatial, logic and code performance of the model so I think it's a very good indicator of the quality.
Here are the results compared to Gemini 3.5 Flash:
Model + config CodeErr/gen Cost/gen Median time Quality
gemini-3.5-flash, low 0.71 $0.18 68s baseline
GLM 5.2, reasoning high 0.61 $0.18 289s -6.0%
GLM 5.2, reasoning off 1.52 $0.10 126s -13.6%
Although it is cheaper, it is significantly slower, and results are worse overall. Surprisingly - high reasoning produces less code errors than gemini 3.5 flash, but when I actually look at the models they are worse.
Edit: I recently ran evals with Kimi 2.7 and MiniMax-M3 and this is clearly open source SOTA model, by far.
I don't have the eval results live yet, so I cannot share them yet.
I was benchmarking using a soon to be released new version of my AI CAD modeling software[0].
It's basically an agent that has access to tools that can execute build123d scripts, get sculpted models, blender to combine sculpts + parametric models, tools to inspect the model (visually and with code), search datasheets, ...
I tried what you recommend a while ago (asking an AI to evaluate using different angles) and the AI evaluations were extremely bad - barely any correlation to what I scored. Things have gotten better, but I don't trust it enough yet.
Here is how I score adherence (and how AI did as well, but I tried methods where it would just give back a boolean "pass" or not):
<0.2 → Poor – Misses core intent; largely irrelevant or incorrect.
<0.4 → Weak – Partially relevant; significant omissions or errors.
<0.6 → Fair – Covers main points but lacks completeness or precision.
<0.8 → Good – Mostly accurate; minor gaps or deviations.
<=1.0 → Excellent – Fully aligned; precise, comprehensive, and faithful to intent.
Here is the scenario list (prompts are much more detailed):
Correct me if I'm wrong, but neither DeepSeek nor GLM have image input modality. This makes them less useful when looking at UIs, photos, screenshots, etc. doesn't it? Or do they have alternate ways of doing so?
DeepSeekv4+ will have image capability, they said so in their paper. GLM whenever they decide to. Both companies have they tech and for whatever reason haven't decide to prioritize it. Both of their OCR are SOTA among all OCR models closed or open. GLM demonstrated they know how to do this, with GLM-4.6V.
Yes, you are right (as far as I'm aware). For things where you need the LLM to look at screenshots, photos or other images you can use Kimi-K2.6/K2.7 - comparable pricing, somewhat comparable performance and quality. You can even probably combine two models (e.g Kimi and GLM) in one agent, using Kimi for multimodal inputs and GLM for everything else, although 1) I'm not sure if this will not cause some kind of context poisoning with low-quality patterns for better performing model (e.g. in some cases Kimi may be worse than GLM, but GLM, when following up, may adopt the same reasoning patterns as Kimi, undermining it's own performance), and 2) I'm not quite sure if it's possible with the tools currently available (I'm not really into agentic or chatbots stuff to be honest).
It also means that if they actually trained with vision, they'd be on par with Anthropic models as vision seems to improve model performance across the board even for non-vision tasks.
Many other open source models have vision but they don't compare to GLM in terms of coding quality. So I don't think it's because of vision that the frontier models are better, it's more that they are probably just much bigger models.
That's right, but there are other recent open weights and relatively big LLMs that are multimodal, e.g. MiniMax-M3.
With open weights LLMs, it is affordable to use many different models, each for whatever it is better.
Moreover, for analyzing "UIs, photos, screenshots, etc." there are small models that can be run locally on smartphones or laptops, e.g. IBM granite-vision-4.1-4B, certain Google Gemma 4 variants and certain Qwen variants, whose output you can use as input for a big LLM, in order to accomplish some more complex task.
Configure a subagent in your coding harness for vision, add a prompt about the vision use, configure a vision model for it, modify your main agent's prompt to use the vision subagent for vision tasks. Now your non-vision model has vision support.
GLM 5.2 feels like Opus 4.6 level. I actually think 4.6 and GLM work better in practice than opus 4.7 or 4.8 as I find both of those more erratic and seem to randomly have a super dumb turn. That random bad turn I see doesn't seem to be hitting the benchmark scores but they make 4.7 and 4.8 very hard to use for me. GLM is more stable like opus 4.6
I like their models, super cheap - I'm a Lite plan subscriber, and subjective performance seems to be same as lower Anthropic models, useful for lots of grunt work.
The problem is that Ziphu really __really__ struggle with capacity - everyone is complaining of timeouts or very slow speeds. I can't get direct access to the model though I see it is in OpenRouter so I may play. But the capacity issues means DeepSeek is my main provider these days
DeepSeek V4 has been quite amazing in our workloads and it operates at a fraction of the cost. I have not tried GLM 5.2 but it seems that it hits a sweet spot.
I've made a comment before that 5.1 will sometimes get stuck looping over a simple decision or statement. It will basically contradict and then not realize that one option is the definite option. Sometimes it's two statements that aren't even exclusive. Nonetheless, a lot of tokens that get wasted from this.
I haven't extensively used 5.2 yet, but it seems a lot better.
Seems really good at frontend work, and as a result on remotion programmatic videos. Not the best yet, thats still Gemini 3.1 pro(trained on actual videos) or Fable, but often better than what Opus can come up with
For anyone who's interested, I've put together a simple site for sharing ratings/opinions on models at a task-specific granularity. https://model.reviews/
The idea is that benchmark score comparisons are useful for a large cross-product comparison across models + their settings, but less useful if you're looking for the best model for <your-specific-task>. So I thought having a place to review and comment could be beneficial to people.
I'm not sure how best to get the corpus bootstrapped (i.e. people will likely only visit/post on the site if there's already activity), so posting it here for anyone who'd like to contribute.
Fun fact: Zhipu aka Z.ai, Knowledge Atlas etc., the company that made GLM, is listed on Hong Kong stock exchange, is up over 10x since the IPO at the beginning of this year.
I meant the credits are included in the application you download from there. Install, log in (via google) and You'll get glm 5.2 + turbo. Mine actually either got replenished or they are not checking by login because they are full after installing at a second desktop.
Are you using it for long context windows? I burn through my 5hr quota with GLM almost instantly on 200k+ contexts, but if I reset every ~100k or so it's much more manageable.
This was a problem with older Qwen/MiMo/Kimi models mostly. GLM has always been on the more robust side, and newer iterations from all those labs have improved as well. The only lab I've seen regressing this way is DeepSeek, 3.2 was fairly robust but 4.0 feels more benchmaxxed.
I have used GLM since version 4.8 I think and do enjoy using them. More then other models like Kimi or Deepseek. Though only tested them on smaller private projects.
I beg to differ. I replaced a $40/mo GitHub Copilot subscription where I used Opus 4.6 and GPT 5.5 with a $10/mo opencode Go plan where I use mostly DeepSeek V4 Flash and testing MiMo 2.5.
I work on mid-sized projects currently (200k to 1kk lines of code).
You are obviously lying because it shows you have no experience with. GLM since 4.5 have been crushing it. all their models since then haven't skipped a beat. 4.5/4.5-air, 4.6, 4.7, 4.8, 5, 5.1. That aside, MiMoV2.5, MiniMax from 2.0, DeepSeek from V3, Kimi since V2, Qwen since 3, Hy3 have all been amazing models. All from China, we need to get over it. China is not losing yet as far as the AI race is concerned.
These open source models need better multi-turn capabilities. They are always lacklustre in "agent mode". Whether it's just less RL, whatever, it's a worse "product". Whereas it feels like the frontier labs have been all-in on "agentic" multi-turn reasoning for a long time now.
I'm curious what harness everyone is using for these? I want to start to test some of these open models but don't know what tools people use to get these working "agenticaly"
I tested this myself a few months ago, and confirmed that it was really happening.
LLMs don't know who they are unless the system prompt tells them, and as all of them are trained on model responses that exist on the web that end up being scraped, the weights may predict a certain incorrect response. LLMs have no ability to introspect, and do not know anything about themselves, so they will hallucinate in response to that question unless they are carefully trained on that exact, pointless question.
It's a surprisingly common misconception that models contain any metadata at all about themselves in their weights. If you ask them, "What model are you?" they either retrieve the answer from the system prompt, or they hallucinate an answer. Same goes for questions about knowledge cut-off, how many parameters they have, the source of their training data, etc.
I have a question, as it happens: Do you think the benchmarks and models were trained on benchmark datasets to skew the results, even though in real-world applications we realize they're not that great?
This is really held back by one bench (omniscience accuracy) where it's really very far behind otherwise i think it's got at least a couple of points higher.
It's a real step forward, getting closer to SOTA. It seems to be very epistemically cautious in its reasoning. I hope Deepseek and the other open-weights labs stay in the game and catch up too.
People always say stuff like this, but it is misleading. The reason it's misleading is because that remaining 5% makes a huge difference, and is where most of the value of using AI agents lies.
I'm not interested in using AI to write code that would have taken me 5-10 minutes to write myself. I use AI to debug complex bugs and develop large features that span multiple domains - stuff that normally takes hours, if not days/weeks. A model that is "enough for 95%" does not cut it for that, because the failures compound during long-horizon tasks and the thing becomes a mess.
I get what you mean. But for many people, AI coding is not about solving complex problems. No, they do it mostly themselves. AI coding for many is a productivity tool, where it helps you with mundane, but laborious tasks.
In my setup, I use a daily workhorse for such things. They should be fast, cheap and reasonably working well. I don’t expect it to be smart, but need it to follow instructions perfectly and handle tool calling well.
For architectural work or debugging help, I use the top models instead.
That works reasonably well for me with a low cost.
Sure, but whatever you do, don't buy their (Z.ai) lite plan.
I feel like i threw 15 dollars in the sea. I'm getting rate limited after 3-4 prompts. You get way less value than just paying 25 dollars for Claude or OpenAI models.
I had the Lite plan, I NEVER maxed out the quota because I considered these things. If I, for example, switched over to GLM-5-Turbo, then I could've easily burned through quota.
I just read it and honestly it left an even worse taste in my mouth.
>GLM-5.2 and GLM-5-Turbo are advanced models designed to rival Claude Opus model. Its usage will be deducted at 3 × during peak hours and 2 × during off-peak hours.
Claude certainly does not punish me for using their best models. Why should this "up and coming" company do it?
I thought the up and coming ai companies was supposed to have some kind of leverage in terms of price/performance (see deepseeks insanely cheap V4 flash and pro).
How are you using it? I have the lite plan and I've only ever maxed my weekly usage a few hours before reset. I will concede that I'm not a super heavy LLM user but it's been really good for me.
My workflow is usually:
- read file. I want to achieve X, how do? Do not implement anything.
- I would do a, b and c
- sketch a brief implementation of your suggestion
- <code> (not writing files yet)
- instead of your approach x, wouldn't it make sense to instead do z? What would that look like?
Are you using it in an agentic workflow? Just reading the codebase will consume a lot of cached tokens, but seemingly, z.ai counts these as normal input tokens the way they're rate limiting.
I'm not entirely sure what an agentic workflow could mean today but I think so. I use a coding agent (crush), prompt it to brainstorm an implementation with me (or sometimes I know exactly how I want to implement it but ask it to challenge it), correct any wrong assumptions or request the implementation to look differently than suggested if I don't like it. Then finally when I'm positive I've cleared the most important assumptions I ask it to actually write and edit files and run tests and such (this just ends up being a "implement this").
With any model I've tried I've found it to be a huge pain to have it fix things where it made a wrong assumption without the code becoming a mess and burning a lot of tokens. I'm aware that not everyone works like this but I'm still very opinionated on what the end result should look like so I can still work on it without an LLM.
Which is fine for their target market. Their latest model is Kimi K2.6, available to enterprise customers. But older models become more powerful when you have time to do more reasoning. Also many applications don't need advanced models. Cerebras is making bank from all the other use cases that SOTA providers left on the table by focusing on 0-shot intelligence over speed
"open source" means that the code itself (for LLMs - this is training code) is available to the general public. "open weights" means that the weights (trained over time) are available publicly, rather than locked behind a paywalled chat. I do not know of an open source LLM that is not also open weights (unless they never bothered training it). Models like Claude and Gemini are neither open source, nor are they open weights.
Also so wild that it's relatively compact. 753B-40A is so reasonable, shows incredible scaling in what the model can do, without just throwing heaps of new parameters in.
This is silly but I dig how 753 is very close to 745, which is the watts in a HP. 1bHP parameter model. Silly, but I enjoy it.
I asked z.ai what z.ai is, and it said "It seems you might be referring to xAI, as "z.ai" isn't a widely known or major AI company or platform at this time."
I have been trying out GLM 5.2 and I am really impressed by it for the most part.
To all people on Hackernews, I am curious as to what agent harness are you using it with.
Previously I was using opencode and then I switched to using Opencode + obra/superpowers and creating custom skill.md themselves for it. I found things to take more time and intervene more but the result of it has been that I have found it to work better.
Now I have also started using oh-my-pi as well and I found it to be faster compared to Opencode.
I am unsure how much of there is a difference to it and how much of things are placebo but what is your opinion regarding the best Agent harness for GLM 5.2?
Ok, it is nice to see another great open source model. Not sure what to think of all these benchmarks but GLM was already quite strong before so an update is very welcome.
I tried it today through Openrouter and the API is atrocious. I got multiple rate limit and random errors every turn.
Somebody wrote [1]; "I am never touching Minimax or GLM again. Their APIs had constant outages and I had to restart my runs multiple times — after burning money on the runs that failed midway." and I 100% agree.
The model might be good, but if the API is so bad, it's effectively useless.
The entire point of this post is that it's open weights, you can run it yourself and don't have to deal with the API issues. You really do have that choice.
You could subscribe to Anthropic/OpenAI for the rest of your life for the cost it would take to host GLM5.2 locally - you need 1.5TB of VRAM just for the weights
You don't need that much VRAM unless you're targeting a high-performance deployment that's intended to scale far beyond local use. For a lower-throughput case, you can keep the model weights on SSD at very low cost and stream them in for inference. This could actually scale reasonably well if you have something as simple as a previous-gen HEDT with a decent amount of PCIe lanes to host fast storage from.
Give it a few days and additional provider will be up and available on OpenRouter. Then the game of figuring out who’s not nuking the weights and neutering the quantization begins.
