Skip to main content
idapt
HomeAI ModelsPricing
Sign inStart free

GPT 4.1 vs GLM 5.2

At a glance
OpenAIGPT 4.1

OpenAI's flagship GPT-4.1 with advanced instruction following and long context.

701.0M ctx$2.00/$8.00 per M#55/92
Zhipu AIGLM 5.2

Z.ai's frontier reasoning model for long-context agents and software engineering.

83262K ctx$1.40/$4.40 per M#16/92
AI Output
All AI outputs

No captured outputs for these models yet.

Benchmarks
See rankings
OpenAIGPT 4.1
AgenticInsufficient data
Sources:Epoch ECI·Epoch AI·OpenRouter· as of 2026-07-10
Capability
CapabilityECI70.4
Reasoning & Knowledge
Graduate Science66.9%Expert-Level5.4%Factual Recall—
Math
Math Problems83.0%Competition Math38.3%Research Math5.5%
Coding
Real-World Coding48.5%Code Editing52.4%
Agentic
Novel Reasoning0.4%
Zhipu AIGLM 5.2
Reasoning
AgenticInsufficient data
Sources:Epoch ECI·Epoch AI·OpenRouter· as of 2026-07-10
SmarterCheaper
Capability
CapabilityECI83.4
Reasoning & Knowledge
Graduate Science91.9%Expert-Level—Factual Recall38.1%
Math
Math Problems—Competition Math86.4%Research Math—
Coding
Real-World Coding78.7%Code Editing—
Agentic
Novel Reasoning—
Specs
OpenAIGPT 4.1
1.0M
Context
16K
Max output
Apr 2025
Released
Zhipu AIGLM 5.2
262K
Context
128K
Max output
Jun 2026
Released
Capabilities
OpenAIGPT 4.1
Vision
Audio
Reasoning
Zhipu AIGLM 5.2
Vision
Audio
Reasoning
Pricing
OpenAIGPT 4.1
Live pricing, shown before you run
Input$2.00/M tokens
Output$8.00/M tokens
Cache read$0.50/M tokens
Web search$0.01/search
Zhipu AIGLM 5.2
Live pricing, shown before you run
Input$1.40/M tokens
Output$4.40/M tokens
Cache read$0.26/M tokens
Chat with GPT 4.1Go to model
Chat with GLM 5.2Go to model
Frequently Asked Questions: GPT 4.1 vs GLM 5.2▼

Which is better, GPT 4.1 or GLM 5.2?

▼

Based on the Capability Index, GLM 5.2 scores higher (83.4 vs 70.4). However, "better" depends on your use case — pricing, speed, context window, and specific capability needs all matter.

Which is cheaper, GPT 4.1 or GLM 5.2?

▼

GLM 5.2 has a lower blended cost. GPT 4.1: $2.00 input / $8.00 output. GLM 5.2: $1.40 input / $4.40 output.

Which has a larger context window, GPT 4.1 or GLM 5.2?

▼

GPT 4.1 has a larger context window: GPT 4.1 supports 1M tokens vs GLM 5.2 at 262K tokens.

Do both GPT 4.1 and GLM 5.2 support vision?

▼

GPT 4.1 supports vision/image input, but GLM 5.2 does not.

Which has better coding performance, GPT 4.1 or GLM 5.2?

▼

GLM 5.2 scores higher on SWE-bench Verified: GPT 4.1 resolves 49% vs GLM 5.2 at 79%.

What are the key differences between GPT 4.1 and GLM 5.2?

▼

Key differences: GLM 5.2 has a notably higher capability index (13.0 point gap); only GPT 4.1 supports vision input; only GLM 5.2 offers extended reasoning mode. Compare full specs on this page.

Which model should I choose for my use case?

▼

If cost is your priority, choose the cheaper option. If you need the highest intelligence for complex tasks, pick the higher-scoring model. For long documents or codebases, choose the larger context window. You can try both GPT 4.1 and GLM 5.2 for free on idapt.app to see which performs better for your specific needs.

Open in App
  • Home
  • Pricing
  • AI Models
  • Image models
  • Voice models
  • Video models
  • Rankings
  • New models
  • Model status
  • Multi-Model Chat
  • Voice Mode
  • Voice HUD
  • Web Search
  • Image Generation
  • Video Generation
  • Audio Generation
  • Transcription
  • Drive
  • Secrets
  • Sharing
  • Workspaces
  • Tasks
  • Memory
  • Agents
  • Subagents
  • Automations
  • Skills
  • Code Execution
  • Computers
  • Computer Use
  • Cloud Computers
  • Local AI
  • AI Gateway
  • API & SDK
  • CLI
  • MCP
  • Tunnels
  • All features →
  • Blog
  • Use cases
  • Comparisons
  • Best of
  • Learn
  • Free tools
  • Prompts
  • Templates
  • Changelog
  • Help center
  • FAQ
  • Privacy
  • Compare all models
  • Support
  • Developers
  • Quickstarts
  • API reference
  • API pricing
  • CLI
  • MCP
  • Downloads
  • Desktop
  • Badges and embeds
© idapt[email protected]TermsPrivacy PolicyLegal noticeReport content
X (Twitter)