CompareLLM
CompareLLM.ai
Live
LeaderboardModelsCompareStacksBest ofGuidesNewsMethod
…
CompareLLM
CompareLLM.ai
Precision Benchmarks

Programmatic, dated AI model benchmarks, head-to-head comparisons, and Stack Engine presets.

Daily ingest · 06:00 UTC

Analytics & Benchmarks

  • AI Model Leaderboard
  • Head-to-Head Compare Hub
  • Models Directory
  • Stack Engine Presets
  • Frontier Models
  • Open Weights Catalog

Guides & Intent Lists

  • Best LLM Lists (2026)
  • Best Coding LLM
  • Best Cheap LLM
  • Fastest Low-Latency LLM
  • Claude vs GPT Benchmark
  • What is Elo?
  • Methodology Guides
  • News & Dispatches

Transparency & API

  • Evaluation Methodology
  • Benchmark Changelog
  • Public JSON API
  • llms.txt Specification
  • Privacy Policy
  • Sign In / Account

© 2026 CompareLLM. Public benchmark data aggregated from Arena Elo, LiveBench, SWE-bench & OpenRouter.

Every score has a dated snapshot.

  1. Home
  2. Comparisons
  3. Claude Haiku 4.5 vs GLM-5.2

Pairwise benchmark snapshot · Aug 16, 2026

Claude Haiku 4.5 vs GLM-5.2 benchmark

This page compares Claude Haiku 4.5 (Anthropic) and GLM-5.2 (Zhipu) using the latest snapshots we have as of Aug 16, 2026. On preference Elo, GLM-5.2 is ahead by 54 points (1,492 vs 1,438; seed-bootstrap (Aug 1, 2026)). On SWE-bench coding, GLM-5.2 resolves 69.3% versus 58.2% (seed-bootstrap (Aug 1, 2026)). Claude Haiku 4.5 streams faster (175 tok/s) while GLM-5.2 is the cheaper output token ($0.97/1M). GLM-5.2 has the larger context window (1M tokens). Every cell below is a dated snapshot from a named public source — we do not invent missing scores, and we do not run SWE-bench ourselves.

Quick answer

Claude Haiku 4.5 vs GLM-5.2 is a dated snapshot, not a lab score. GLM-5.2 leads preference Elo (1,492 vs 1,438). GLM-5.2 leads SWE-bench coding. GLM-5.2 is the cheaper output token. Elo is crowd preference, not an exam. Pick the column that matches the job.
Share Analysis:
WhatsAppTelegramX / PostLinkedInReddit

Anthropic

Claude Haiku 4.5

Anthropic cheap/fast Claude SKU. Official Claude Platform list price $1/$5 per 1M tokens (Anthropic Haiku page).

Elo 1,438$5/1M out

Zhipu

GLM-5.2

Zhipu flagship. Strong Chinese/English coding and agents.

Elo 1,492$0.9680000000000001/1M out

Swap or Add Any Model to this Matchup

Instant pairwise benchmark recalculation across 400+ LLMs

Model A
Model B
Quick vs:vs Claude Opus 4.5vs Claude Opus 4.6vs Claude Sonnet 4.5vs Claude 3.7 Sonnet

Interactive Comparison Diagram

Matchup Breakdown

Tug-of-War Matchup Matrix

Category wins across intelligence, speed, and pricing efficiency.

Claude Haiku 4.5 (2)vsGLM-5.2 (8)
Claude Haiku 4.5: 2W (20%)Overall: GLM-5.2GLM-5.2: 8W (80%)
← Claude Haiku 4.5GLM-5.2 →
GLM-5.2 (5/5)

Intelligence & Reasoning

Preference Elo, Coding proficiency, SWE-bench & LiveBench accuracy

Preference Elo
1,438vs1,492
Coding Elo
1,446vs1,504
SWE-bench
58.2%vs69.3%
LiveBench
62.4%vs65.2%
GPQA Diamond
74%vs79.5%
Claude Haiku 4.5: 0WGLM-5.2: 5W
Claude Haiku 4.5 (2/2)

Speed & Latency

Generation throughput and time to first token responsiveness

Output speed
175 tok/svs84 tok/s
Time to first token
95 msvs270 ms
Claude Haiku 4.5: 2WGLM-5.2: 0W
GLM-5.2 (3/3)

Pricing & Capacity

Cost per million tokens and max context window length

Output price
$5/1Mvs$0.97/1M
Input price
$1/1Mvs$0.31/1M
Context window
200kvs1M
Claude Haiku 4.5: 0WGLM-5.2: 3W
Capability Matchup Radar

Multi-Dimensional Capability Radar

Each spoke is a skill. Farther from the center is better (0–100th percentile). Tap any dot to inspect details.

Tap any node to inspect
Percentile 0–100
Dimensional AdvantageGLM-5.2 5/6
Preference Elo

GLM-5.2

54 pts advantage

Throughput Speed

Claude Haiku 4.5

91 tok/s faster

Price Efficiency

GLM-5.2

$4.03/1M cheaper

Full Benchmark Score Matrix

—
Elo
High is better
1,438
EloHigh is better
1,492+4%
Code Elo
High is better
1,446
Code EloHigh is better
1,504+4%
LiveBench
High is better
62.4%
LiveBenchHigh is better
65.2%+4%
SWE-bench
High is better
58.2%
SWE-benchHigh is better
69.3%+19%
GPQA
High is better
74%
GPQAHigh is better
79.5%+7%
TTFT
Low is better
+184%95 ms
TTFTLow is better
270 ms
Speed
High is better
+108%175 tok/s
SpeedHigh is better
84 tok/s
In $
Low is better
$1/1M
In $Low is better
$0.31/1M+225%
Out $
Low is better
$5/1M
Out $Low is better
$0.97/1M+417%
Context
High is better
200k
ContextHigh is better
1M+424%
Interactive Simulator

Workload Cost & Savings Calculator

Simulate monthly production API costs based on published $/1M tokens.

Save up to 77% with GLM-5.2
Monthly Volume50M tokens/mo
Quick Presets:
Token Ratio (In vs Out)70% In / 30% Out
RAG / Search (10% out)Coding / Chat (50% out)
Claude Haiku 4.5$110.00 / mo
In: $35.00Out: $75.00
GLM-5.2$25.30 / mo
In: $10.78Out: $14.52
Estimated Cost Delta

GLM-5.2 is estimated to save $84.70/month ($1,016/year).

Based on 50M tokens (30% gen)

Key Selection Recommendations

  • 1
    GLM-5.2:Pick GLM-5.2 when repo-level coding accuracy is the constraint.
  • 2
    Claude Haiku 4.5:Pick Claude Haiku 4.5 when time-to-first-token matters more than peak Elo.
  • 3
    GLM-5.2:Pick GLM-5.2 for million-token RAG or long-document jobs.

Recommended Workload Routing

Repo / coding agentsGLM-5.2

Higher SWE-bench (69.3%).

High-volume chatGLM-5.2

Lower output list price ($0.97/1M).

Voice / low-latency UIClaude Haiku 4.5

Lower TTFT (95 ms).

Long-document RAGGLM-5.2

Larger window (1M).

Screenshots / visionGLM-5.2

Both accept images. Defaulting to the higher-Elo side (GLM-5.2).

Target WorkloadRecommended PickEvaluation Rationale
Repo / coding agentsGLM-5.2Higher SWE-bench (69.3%).
High-volume chatGLM-5.2Lower output list price ($0.97/1M).
Voice / low-latency UIClaude Haiku 4.5Lower TTFT (95 ms).
Long-document RAGGLM-5.2Larger window (1M).
Screenshots / visionGLM-5.2Both accept images. Defaulting to the higher-Elo side (GLM-5.2).

Related Editorial Dispatches & Benchmark Notes

View all news
newsAug 16, 2026

GLM-5.2 vs GLM 5V Turbo Price and SWE-bench 2026

GLM-5.2 undercuts GLM 5V Turbo by 74.2% on input at $0.31/1M, with 1,492 Elo and 69.3% SWE-bench in dated 2026 snapshots.

compareAug 16, 2026

Haiku 4.5 vs Llama 4 Scout: cheap Claude versus cheap open Llama

$1/$5 hosted Claude vs a cheap long-context open sibling. The alternative-to-Sonnet pair that is honest.

launchJun 18, 2026

GLM-5.2 remains the prior Zhipu flagship for upgrade pairs

Strong Chinese/English coding. 5.3 is the new row; 5.2 stays so the delta is visible.

launchApr 8, 2026

Llama 4 Scout: long-context open sibling of Maverick

Huge window, cheap hosted lists. The Haiku alternative that is actually open-weight.

Community Sentiment

Cast Your Matchup Vote

0 total votes

Community Discussions (0)

Sign in to cast your verified vote, bookmark models, and participate in benchmark discussions.Sign In to Post

No comments posted on this matchup yet. Be the first to share an evaluation note!

Share card

The real PNG is generated at /compare/claude-haiku-4-5-vs-glm-5-2/opengraph-image for crawlers.

PNG

CompareLLM Matrix

Verified head-to-head card

LIVE
VS
Anthropic

Claude Haiku 4.5

Elo 1,438
LiveBench62.4%
SWE-bench58.2%
Speed175 tok/s
Output cost$5/1M
Zhipu

GLM-5.2

Elo 1,492
LiveBench65.2%
SWE-bench69.3%
Speed84 tok/s
Output cost$0.97/1M

Frequently Asked Questions

Which is better overall, Claude Haiku 4.5 or GLM-5.2?
GLM-5.2 has the higher preference Elo in our latest snapshot (1,492). “Better” still depends on coding, price, and latency — see the table.
Which is better at coding, Claude Haiku 4.5 or GLM-5.2?
GLM-5.2 leads SWE-bench at 69.3% vs 58.2%. SWE-bench is one harness, not your repo.
Which is cheaper to run in production?
GLM-5.2 output tokens are $0.97/1M versus $5/1M. Input prices and retry rates still move the real bill.
Which is faster, Claude Haiku 4.5 or GLM-5.2?
Claude Haiku 4.5 has the lower time-to-first-token (95 ms vs 270 ms). Tokens/sec is a separate column if you care about long completions.
Which has the larger context window?
GLM-5.2 accepts 1M tokens versus 200k.
Can I self-host either model?
GLM-5.2 is marked open-weights in our catalog. The other side is a closed API. Check the provider license before you ship weights.
Are these scores from CompareLLM’s own evals?
No. V1 aggregates public leaderboards (and optional first-party latency pings). Each cell names its source and date. Read /methodology.
What does preference Elo mean on this page?
Preference Elo is a crowd vote from LMArena / Arena. People see two hidden answers and pick the one they like more. The model that wins more often gets a higher Elo. That means people preferred it — not that it passed a school test. It is not SWE-bench, not accuracy, and not a number we invent. Claude Haiku 4.5 and GLM-5.2 Elo cells are dated snapshots from the named source — we do not compute Arena ourselves.

Related news

  • news · Aug 16, 2026

    GLM-5.2 vs GLM 5V Turbo Price and SWE-bench 2026

  • compare · Aug 16, 2026

    Haiku 4.5 vs Llama 4 Scout: cheap Claude versus cheap open Llama

  • launch · Jun 18, 2026

    GLM-5.2 remains the prior Zhipu flagship for upgrade pairs

  • launch · Apr 8, 2026

    Llama 4 Scout: long-context open sibling of Maverick

Similar Head-to-Head Comparisons

All Claude Haiku 4.5 matchups →|All GLM-5.2 matchups →
Claude Haiku 4.5 vs Claude 3.5 Haiku (previous haiku)GLM-5.2 vs GLM-5.3 (next glm)Claude Sonnet 4.5 vs GLM-5.2Claude Sonnet 5 vs GLM-5.2Claude Opus 4.5 vs GLM-5.2Claude Opus 4.6 vs GLM-5.2