Pairwise benchmark snapshot · Aug 17, 2026noindex (thin pair)

GLM-5.2 vs Ideogram 4.0 (Quality) benchmark

Name: GLM-5.2 vs Ideogram 4.0 (Quality) AI benchmark comparison
Creator: CompareLLM
License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

This page compares GLM-5.2 (Zhipu) and Ideogram 4.0 (Quality) (Ideogram) using the latest snapshots we have as of Aug 17, 2026. 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.

Share Analysis:

WhatsApp Telegram X / Post LinkedIn Reddit

Zhipu

GLM-5.2

Zhipu flagship. Strong Chinese/English coding and agents.

GLM-5.2Img Elo 1,492

Ideogram

Ideogram 4.0 (Quality)

Industry-leading typography, graphic design, and in-image text layout model with precise kerning and complex banner generation.

Img Elo 1,216$100/1k imgs

Model Lineage & Multi-Tier Derivatives🇨🇳 CN Frontier

GLM-5 Series Family (2 models)

Compare vs Base (GLM-5.3)

GLM-5.2

Zhipu

GLM-5.2

Elo

1492

Speed

84 tok/s

Price

$3.74 / 1M

-66 Elo+108% cost0.9x speed

Viewing now

GLM-5.3

Zhipu

Flagship Base

Elo

1558

Speed

90 tok/s

Price

$1.80 / 1M

View model →vs this

Swap or Add Any Model to this Matchup

Instant pairwise benchmark recalculation across 400+ LLMs

Model A

Model B

Quick vs:vs Claude Opus 4.5 vs Claude Opus 4.6 vs Claude Sonnet 4.5 vs Claude 3.7 Sonnet

Interactive Comparison Diagram

Matchup Breakdown

Tug-of-War Matchup Matrix

Category wins across intelligence, speed, and pricing efficiency.

GLM-5.2 (0)vsIdeogram 4.0 (Quality) (5)

GLM-5.2: 0W (0%)Overall: Ideogram 4.0 (Quality)Ideogram 4.0 (Quality): 5W (100%)

← GLM-5.2Ideogram 4.0 (Quality) →

Ideogram 4.0 (Quality) (3/3)

Visual Quality & Adherence

Arena Preference Elo, prompt fidelity & typography score

Image Elo

—vs1,216

Prompt adherence

—vs91.5%

Text rendering

—vs96.5%

GLM-5.2: 0WIdeogram 4.0 (Quality): 3W

Ideogram 4.0 (Quality) (1/1)

Generation Latency

Time to render full-resolution image snapshot (seconds)

Generation time

—vs5s

GLM-5.2: 0WIdeogram 4.0 (Quality): 1W

Ideogram 4.0 (Quality) (1/1)

Cost Efficiency

API inference cost per 1,000 generated images

Price per 1k images

—vs$100/1k

GLM-5.2: 0WIdeogram 4.0 (Quality): 1W

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 AdvantageIdeogram 4.0 (Quality) 5/6

Image Preference Elo

No shared data

Generation Latency

No shared data

Image Price Efficiency

No shared data

Full Benchmark Score Matrix

—

Img Elo

High is better

—

Img EloHigh is better

1,216

Gen Time

Low is better

—

Gen TimeLow is better

Img $

Low is better

—

Img $Low is better

$100/1k

Prompt %

High is better

—

Prompt %High is better

91.5%

Text %

High is better

—

Text %High is better

96.5%

Interactive Simulator (USD)

Workload Cost & Savings Calculator

Simulate monthly production API costs in USD (US Dollar).

Save up to 100% with GLM-5.2

Monthly Image Production Volume25k images / month (25000 imgs)

Quick Presets:

GLM-5.2$0.00 / mo

Rate: $0/1k

Ideogram 4.0 (Quality)$2,500.00 / mo

Rate: $100/1k

Estimated Cost Delta

GLM-5.2 is estimated to save $2,500.00/month ($30,000/year).

Based on 25k images generated

Recommended Workload Routing

Repo / coding agentsinsufficient data

Need SWE-bench on both sides.

High-volume chatinsufficient data

Need list prices.

Voice / low-latency UIinsufficient data

Need TTFT on both sides.

Long-document RAGinsufficient data

Need context sizes.

Screenshots / visioninsufficient data

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

Target Workload	Recommended Pick	Evaluation Rationale
Repo / coding agents	insufficient data	Need SWE-bench on both sides.
High-volume chat	insufficient data	Need list prices.
Voice / low-latency UI	insufficient data	Need TTFT on both sides.
Long-document RAG	insufficient data	Need context sizes.
Screenshots / vision	insufficient data	Both accept images. Defaulting to the higher-Elo side (undefined).

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.

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.

Community Sentiment

Cast Your Matchup Vote

0 total votes

Community Discussions (0)

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

Share card

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

PNG

CompareLLM Matrix

Verified head-to-head card

LIVE

Zhipu

GLM-5.2

Elo 1,492

LiveBench65.2%

SWE-bench69.3%

Speed84 tok/s

Output cost$3.74/1M

Ideogram

Ideogram 4.0 (Quality)

Elo n/a

LiveBench—

SWE-bench—

Speed—

Output cost—

Frequently Asked Questions

Which is better overall, GLM-5.2 or Ideogram 4.0 (Quality)?: We do not have preference Elo for both models, so we do not declare an overall winner. Compare the metrics that exist.
Which is better at coding, GLM-5.2 or Ideogram 4.0 (Quality)?: SWE-bench is missing for at least one model, so we do not rank coding from a single number.
Which is cheaper to run in production?: List prices are missing for at least one model.
Which is faster, GLM-5.2 or Ideogram 4.0 (Quality)?: We do not have TTFT for both models.
Which has the larger context window?: Context window is missing for at least one model.
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. GLM-5.2 and Ideogram 4.0 (Quality) Elo cells are dated snapshots from the named source — we do not compute Arena ourselves.

Similar Head-to-Head Comparisons

All GLM-5.2 matchups →|All Ideogram 4.0 (Quality) matchups →

GLM-5.2 vs Z.ai: GLM 5V Turbo (next glm)Ideogram 4.0 (Quality) vs Ideogram 4.0 Open Weights (next ideogram)GLM-5.3 vs GLM-5.2 Gemini 2.0 Flash Thinking vs GLM-5.2 DeepSeek V4 Flash vs GLM-5.2 Gemini 3 Flash vs GLM-5.2

Interactive Comparison Diagram

Matchup Breakdown

Tug-of-War Matchup Matrix

Category wins across intelligence, speed, and pricing efficiency.

GLM-5.2 (0)vsIdeogram 4.0 (Quality) (5)

GLM-5.2: 0W (0%)Overall: Ideogram 4.0 (Quality)Ideogram 4.0 (Quality): 5W (100%)

← GLM-5.2Ideogram 4.0 (Quality) →

Ideogram 4.0 (Quality) (3/3)

Visual Quality & Adherence

Arena Preference Elo, prompt fidelity & typography score

Image Elo

—vs1,216

Prompt adherence

—vs91.5%

Text rendering

—vs96.5%

GLM-5.2: 0WIdeogram 4.0 (Quality): 3W

Ideogram 4.0 (Quality) (1/1)

Generation Latency

Time to render full-resolution image snapshot (seconds)

Generation time

—vs5s

GLM-5.2: 0WIdeogram 4.0 (Quality): 1W

Ideogram 4.0 (Quality) (1/1)

Cost Efficiency

API inference cost per 1,000 generated images

Price per 1k images

—vs$100/1k

GLM-5.2: 0WIdeogram 4.0 (Quality): 1W

Recommended Workload Routing

Repo / coding agentsinsufficient data

Need SWE-bench on both sides.

High-volume chatinsufficient data

Need list prices.

Voice / low-latency UIinsufficient data

Need TTFT on both sides.

Long-document RAGinsufficient data

Need context sizes.

Screenshots / visioninsufficient data

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

Target Workload	Recommended Pick	Evaluation Rationale
Repo / coding agents	insufficient data	Need SWE-bench on both sides.
High-volume chat	insufficient data	Need list prices.
Voice / low-latency UI	insufficient data	Need TTFT on both sides.
Long-document RAG	insufficient data	Need context sizes.
Screenshots / vision	insufficient data	Both accept images. Defaulting to the higher-Elo side (undefined).

Frequently Asked Questions

Which is better overall, GLM-5.2 or Ideogram 4.0 (Quality)?

We do not have preference Elo for both models, so we do not declare an overall winner. Compare the metrics that exist.

Which is better at coding, GLM-5.2 or Ideogram 4.0 (Quality)?

SWE-bench is missing for at least one model, so we do not rank coding from a single number.

Which is cheaper to run in production?

List prices are missing for at least one model.

Which is faster, GLM-5.2 or Ideogram 4.0 (Quality)?

We do not have TTFT for both models.

Which has the larger context window?

Context window is missing for at least one model.

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. GLM-5.2 and Ideogram 4.0 (Quality) Elo cells are dated snapshots from the named source — we do not compute Arena ourselves.

GLM-5 Series Family (2 models)

Swap or Add Any Model to this Matchup

Interactive Comparison Diagram

Tug-of-War Matchup Matrix

Visual Quality & Adherence

Generation Latency

Cost Efficiency

Multi-Dimensional Capability Radar

No shared data

No shared data

No shared data

Full Benchmark Score Matrix

Workload Cost & Savings Calculator

Recommended Workload Routing

Related Editorial Dispatches & Benchmark Notes

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

GLM-5.2 remains the prior Zhipu flagship for upgrade pairs

Cast Your Matchup Vote

Community Discussions (0)

Share card

CompareLLM Matrix

GLM-5.2

Ideogram 4.0 (Quality)

Frequently Asked Questions

Related news

Similar Head-to-Head Comparisons

GLM-5 Series Family (2 models)

Swap or Add Any Model to this Matchup

Interactive Comparison Diagram

Tug-of-War Matchup Matrix

Visual Quality & Adherence

Generation Latency

Cost Efficiency

Multi-Dimensional Capability Radar

No shared data

No shared data

No shared data

Full Benchmark Score Matrix

Workload Cost & Savings Calculator

Recommended Workload Routing

Related Editorial Dispatches & Benchmark Notes

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

GLM-5.2 remains the prior Zhipu flagship for upgrade pairs

Cast Your Matchup Vote

Community Discussions (0)

Share card

CompareLLM Matrix

GLM-5.2

Ideogram 4.0 (Quality)

Frequently Asked Questions

Related news

Similar Head-to-Head Comparisons