SmophyAI

Published daily · Next update 02:00 UTC

Real data comparison

Z.ai: GLM 5.2 (batch) vs Ling-3.0-flash

On quality, Z.ai: GLM 5.2 (batch) leads (52.6 vs 37.8). On price, Ling-3.0-flash is cheaper ($0.03 vs $0.11 per 1M). In real production usage, Z.ai: GLM 5.2 (batch) is used more (rank #4 vs #14 of 291).

  • Z.ai: GLM 5.2 (batch)
  • Ling-3.0-flash
Quality (Intelligence Index)52.6 / 37.8
Price ($/1M blended)$0.11 / $0.03
Average usage share5.54% / 2.05%
Coding index68.8 / 50.6
Agentic index45.7 / 29.3
Context window1,048,576 / 262,144
Quality per dollar489.3 pts/$ / 1200.0 pts/$

Usage share over time

8.48%6.36%4.24%2.12%0.00%Share of usageJul 5Jul 22Aug 8
  • Z.ai: GLM 5.2 (batch)
  • Ling-3.0-flash

Frequently asked questions

Z.ai: GLM 5.2 (batch) vs Ling-3.0-flash: which is better quality?

Z.ai: GLM 5.2 (batch) scores higher on Artificial Analysis's Intelligence Index (52.6 vs 37.8).

Z.ai: GLM 5.2 (batch) vs Ling-3.0-flash: which is cheaper?

Ling-3.0-flash is cheaper at $0.03/1M vs $0.11/1M.

Z.ai: GLM 5.2 (batch) vs Ling-3.0-flash: which is used more?

Z.ai: GLM 5.2 (batch) has higher real OpenRouter usage share (rank #4 vs #14 of 291).

Source: OpenRouter (openrouter.ai/rankings), as of August 9, 2026.

Benchmark scores: Artificial Analysis (artificialanalysis.ai) via OpenRouter (openrouter.ai/rankings).

Methodology: smophy.ai/benchmark/methodology

Token counts originate from each provider's own tokenizer and are not directly comparable across providers.