Video wird geladen...

Video konnte nicht geladen werden

Zur Startseite

We ran a test comparing GLM 5.2 vs Sonnet 5. We used the same prompt, with /design in the command code. The difference is big - effects, motion, and especially the footer. Sonnet 5 had nice hover effects, but didn't come close to GLM 5.2 GLM 5.2 wins on...

CommandCodeAI's profile picture

Command Code

11,149 subscribers

44,260 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat •via X (Twitter)

BildungNachrichten & PolitikWissenschaft & Technologie
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Kommentare

Keine Kommentare verfügbar

Kommentare vom Original-Post werden hier angezeigt

Ähnliche Videos

Grok 4.5 operates at Opus-level intelligence and Sonnet-level pricing! We tested it against Claude Opus 4.8, Sonnet 5, and GLM 5.2 on a SpaceX mission: liftoff, stage sep, orbit insertion, satellite deploy. Grok 4.5 animates it more accurately and vividly than Sonnet 5 and GLM 5.2. Opus is the fastest and most expensive. Grok burns more tokens but still lands ~40% cheaper than Opus, and a bit under Sonnet 5. Time / tokens / cost: Grok 4.5 — / 35k / $0.69 Opus 4.8 — / 13.7k / $1.10 Sonnet 5 — / 22.1k / $0.78 GLM 5.2 — / 92.7k / $0.13 yet GLM did the whole mission for $0.13 😮
0:45

Grok 4.5 operates at Opus-level intelligence and Sonnet-level pricing! We tested it against Claude Opus 4.8, Sonnet 5, and GLM 5.2 on a SpaceX mission: liftoff, stage sep, orbit insertion, satellite deploy. Grok 4.5 animates it more accurately and vividly than Sonnet 5 and GLM 5.2. Opus is the fastest and most expensive. Grok burns more tokens but still lands ~40% cheaper than Opus, and a bit under Sonnet 5. Time / tokens / cost: Grok 4.5 — / 35k / $0.69 Opus 4.8 — / 13.7k / $1.10 Sonnet 5 — / 22.1k / $0.78 GLM 5.2 — / 92.7k / $0.13 yet GLM did the whole mission for $0.13 😮

GMI Cloud

150,679 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

we asked GLM 5.2 and Claude Opus 4.8 to find and fix the bugs in two different scripts while Opus 4.8 finished a few seconds faster in both tests, GLM 5.2 burned roughly 17k–38k fewer tokens and absolutely crushed it on cost, coming in 15x to 22x cheaper! Test 1: GLM 5.2 ($0.068) vs. Opus 4.8 ($1.06) Test 2: GLM 5.2 ($0.045) vs. Opus 4.8 ($1.02)
0:23

we asked GLM 5.2 and Claude Opus 4.8 to find and fix the bugs in two different scripts while Opus 4.8 finished a few seconds faster in both tests, GLM 5.2 burned roughly 17k–38k fewer tokens and absolutely crushed it on cost, coming in 15x to 22x cheaper! Test 1: GLM 5.2 ($0.068) vs. Opus 4.8 ($1.06) Test 2: GLM 5.2 ($0.045) vs. Opus 4.8 ($1.02)

GMI Cloud

86,444 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

1-bit GLM-5.2 GGUF vs. Claude 4.8 Opus vs. GPT-5.5 We gave 3 models the same prompt and compared one-shot outputs. The 1-bit GLM-5.2 GGUF ran locally on a Mac Studio M3 Ultra with 256GB RAM at ~21.6 tok/s. Which output do you like best? GGUF:
0:21

1-bit GLM-5.2 GGUF vs. Claude 4.8 Opus vs. GPT-5.5 We gave 3 models the same prompt and compared one-shot outputs. The 1-bit GLM-5.2 GGUF ran locally on a Mac Studio M3 Ultra with 256GB RAM at ~21.6 tok/s. Which output do you like best? GGUF:

Unsloth AI

1,541,380 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

I re-ran my Fable 5 3D dashboard demo with GLM-5.2. Same prompt. Same reference image. The result is actually pretty solid: 3D globe, route arcs, glass panels, stats cards, and a usable demo page. It is not at Fable 5 level yet, especially in visual precision and one-shot polish. But GLM-5.2 is accessible to all GLM Coding Plan users now. If you’re curious, it’s worth trying. Demo webpage + prompt below 👇
0:28

I re-ran my Fable 5 3D dashboard demo with GLM-5.2. Same prompt. Same reference image. The result is actually pretty solid: 3D globe, route arcs, glass panels, stats cards, and a usable demo page. It is not at Fable 5 level yet, especially in visual precision and one-shot polish. But GLM-5.2 is accessible to all GLM Coding Plan users now. If you’re curious, it’s worth trying. Demo webpage + prompt below 👇

AI Builder Club

49,848 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

Ran two prompts in Kimi K2.7 Code HighSpeed, Kimi K2.7 Code, and GLM 5.2 HighSpeed is 2.5 to 4.2 times faster than Kimi K2.7 Code while producing comparable quality 4.5 to 15 times faster than GLM 5.2, and half the price (or less) These are simple tests, so the pricing difference is small and speed difference could diverge a lot But definitely a hell of a lot faster with good output
0:53

Ran two prompts in Kimi K2.7 Code HighSpeed, Kimi K2.7 Code, and GLM 5.2 HighSpeed is 2.5 to 4.2 times faster than Kimi K2.7 Code while producing comparable quality 4.5 to 15 times faster than GLM 5.2, and half the price (or less) These are simple tests, so the pricing difference is small and speed difference could diverge a lot But definitely a hell of a lot faster with good output

GMI Cloud

38,174 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

I was skeptical about giving GLM-5.2 the task to build a super mario snes style game in a single HTML file so i ran the test on Opus and also on GLM-5.2 Opus didnt even try to make a game or made something but it wasn't a game GLM-5.2 one shotted a pretty functional game.. WILD
0:45

I was skeptical about giving GLM-5.2 the task to build a super mario snes style game in a single HTML file so i ran the test on Opus and also on GLM-5.2 Opus didnt even try to make a game or made something but it wasn't a game GLM-5.2 one shotted a pretty functional game.. WILD

Hermes Agent Tips

32,883 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

GLM 5.2 vs Kimi K2.7 both were tested on same settings with same prompt > GLM one shotted everything in 35 mins > Kimi needed extra prompts to fix movements and took 30 mins super surpised by how good GLM 5.2 is, while being so cheap which one do you think won?
0:35

GLM 5.2 vs Kimi K2.7 both were tested on same settings with same prompt > GLM one shotted everything in 35 mins > Kimi needed extra prompts to fix movements and took 30 mins super surpised by how good GLM 5.2 is, while being so cheap which one do you think won?

J A Z I I

63,741 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

GLM-5.2 is legit. It produces games easily and as accurately as SOTA closed-source models. My GLM 5.2 versus Fable 5 comparison is close, but I prefer Fable 5 just a little. Both games are equal in nearly all respects, but Fable 5 produced slightly better graphics and more challenging gameplay. Both needed 2 shots to get all the prompt instructions correct.
1:00

GLM-5.2 is legit. It produces games easily and as accurately as SOTA closed-source models. My GLM 5.2 versus Fable 5 comparison is close, but I prefer Fable 5 just a little. Both games are equal in nearly all respects, but Fable 5 produced slightly better graphics and more challenging gameplay. Both needed 2 shots to get all the prompt instructions correct.

David Hendrickson

18,779 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

We ran GLM 5.2 and Kimi K3 on 100 deep research tasks (DRACO by perplexity) and asked Fable to be the judge Kimi K3: 71.6 mean score, 77% pass rate GLM 5.2: 41.5 mean score, 22% pass rate K3 took 3h 38m and $60. GLM finished in 1h 45m for $12.50. Deep Dive in 🧵
0:30

We ran GLM 5.2 and Kimi K3 on 100 deep research tasks (DRACO by perplexity) and asked Fable to be the judge Kimi K3: 71.6 mean score, 77% pass rate GLM 5.2: 41.5 mean score, 22% pass rate K3 took 3h 38m and $60. GLM finished in 1h 45m for $12.50. Deep Dive in 🧵

GMI Cloud

80,888 Aufrufe • vor 20 Tagen

Opus 4.8 vs GLM 5.2 everyone is praising Glm on my timeline, so i had to test it myself > both models were given the same prompt > GLM was super fast and used like 2% of my weekly limit > Opus took over 20 mins and used like 3% of weekly limits which one do you think won?
0:41

Opus 4.8 vs GLM 5.2 everyone is praising Glm on my timeline, so i had to test it myself > both models were given the same prompt > GLM was super fast and used like 2% of my weekly limit > Opus took over 20 mins and used like 3% of weekly limits which one do you think won?

J A Z I I

48,108 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

Who did it best? GLM-5.2 (left) | Fugu Ultra (middle) | Fable 5 (right) Same one-shot prompt. The last one is my favorite!
0:59

Who did it best? GLM-5.2 (left) | Fugu Ultra (middle) | Fable 5 (right) Same one-shot prompt. The last one is my favorite!

elvis

47,223 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

I gave the exact same prompt to Qwen 3.7 Max and GLM 5.2. Same workflow. Same platform. Nearly the same starting price. The results weren't even close. Here's what happened. 👇
0:43

I gave the exact same prompt to Qwen 3.7 Max and GLM 5.2. Same workflow. Same platform. Nearly the same starting price. The results weren't even close. Here's what happened. 👇

Md Riyazuddin

153,078 Aufrufe • vor 27 Tagen

GLM 5.2 just beat Fable 5 at website design. 🌐 The crazy part: GLM is text-only. It can build the site, but it can’t inspect the result. So we paired it with Browser Use v2 multimodal QA subagents. > Reviews the site and finds bugs > Judges the aesthetics > Sends GLM targeted fixes to iterate on Build + full QA cost less than $0.75. Try it now ↓
0:25

GLM 5.2 just beat Fable 5 at website design. 🌐 The crazy part: GLM is text-only. It can build the site, but it can’t inspect the result. So we paired it with Browser Use v2 multimodal QA subagents. > Reviews the site and finds bugs > Judges the aesthetics > Sends GLM targeted fixes to iterate on Build + full QA cost less than $0.75. Try it now ↓

Browser Use

273,322 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

I love using GLM 5.2 for web app iteration. My workflow: generate 6 variations, then pick the best one and continue iterating on it. I built Recast to make this even easier. Give it a prompt, get 6 variations, download the code for your favorite version, then continue iterating in your own coding agent. GLM 5.2 works really well for this use case since it's fast, cheap, and great at design. On average, you can make 3-6 landing pages with GLM 5.2 for every one you can generate with Opus 4.8. And the design variety of the GLM landing pages helps a lot with trying to think through what style you want to go with. Recast is launching soon (as a web app + skill).
0:34

I love using GLM 5.2 for web app iteration. My workflow: generate 6 variations, then pick the best one and continue iterating on it. I built Recast to make this even easier. Give it a prompt, get 6 variations, download the code for your favorite version, then continue iterating in your own coding agent. GLM 5.2 works really well for this use case since it's fast, cheap, and great at design. On average, you can make 3-6 landing pages with GLM 5.2 for every one you can generate with Opus 4.8. And the design variety of the GLM landing pages helps a lot with trying to think through what style you want to go with. Recast is launching soon (as a web app + skill).

Hassan

20,164 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

MiniMax M3 vs GLM-5.2 vs Kimi K2.7 in Lunar Lander contest! 🔥 Last test of the day before going back to learning & build phase with Local Models, Swift and Apple Core AI 💪 I took the opportunity to test the MiniMax Code app for macOS. Video below speeded up. Followed by Lunar Lander implementation from the various models. My ranking: 🥇 GLM 5.2 🥈 MiniMax M3 🥉 Kimi K2.7 Coding Prompt and final results in this gist:
0:42

MiniMax M3 vs GLM-5.2 vs Kimi K2.7 in Lunar Lander contest! 🔥 Last test of the day before going back to learning & build phase with Local Models, Swift and Apple Core AI 💪 I took the opportunity to test the MiniMax Code app for macOS. Video below speeded up. Followed by Lunar Lander implementation from the various models. My ranking: 🥇 GLM 5.2 🥈 MiniMax M3 🥉 Kimi K2.7 Coding Prompt and final results in this gist:

Ivan Fioravanti ᯅ

21,604 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

I couldn't believe the results of this benchmarking test. I blind-tested 6 frontier models — Sonnet 5, Opus 4.8, Fable 5, GPT 5.5, GLM 5.2, and Kimi 2.5 — on knowledge work, not engineering. Writing. Analysis. Design. Vibe coding. Subagent simulations. The stuff we actually do all day. Same prompts, each model running its own subagent, every output graded blind before the labels were revealed. The results: → GLM 5.2 (the dirt-cheap open-source model from China) took first → Sonnet 5 took second, beating Fable 5 for knowledge work → Opus 4.8 got whooped Then I had Composer 2.5 judge every output independently — and it picked Fable 5 almost across the board. My blind picks and the AI judge completely disagreed. Full breakdown, method, and prompts in the video below. Which model are you running as your daily driver right now?
18:49

I couldn't believe the results of this benchmarking test. I blind-tested 6 frontier models — Sonnet 5, Opus 4.8, Fable 5, GPT 5.5, GLM 5.2, and Kimi 2.5 — on knowledge work, not engineering. Writing. Analysis. Design. Vibe coding. Subagent simulations. The stuff we actually do all day. Same prompts, each model running its own subagent, every output graded blind before the labels were revealed. The results: → GLM 5.2 (the dirt-cheap open-source model from China) took first → Sonnet 5 took second, beating Fable 5 for knowledge work → Opus 4.8 got whooped Then I had Composer 2.5 judge every output independently — and it picked Fable 5 almost across the board. My blind picks and the AI judge completely disagreed. Full breakdown, method, and prompts in the video below. Which model are you running as your daily driver right now?

JJ Englert

10,737 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

New Z.ai GLM-5.2 beats Kimi K2.7 Code on physics contest! We gave both models the same three prompts and asked them to build self contained HTML5 sims with real physics and no libraries: 1. Pool break 2. Block on a bed of springs 3. Galton board Outputs: GLM-5.2: 12,640 tokens Kimi K2.7 Code: 7,420 tokens GLM 5.2 nailed all three, and it did it with way more detail and polish. The break conserved momentum, the block bounced off the springs and the Galton beads spread into a clean bell curve. Kimi struggled on every scene: its block fell straight through the springs, its break didn't look realistic with the balls colliding all wrong, and on the Galton board its balls overlapped and piled into each other instead of spreading out
0:33

New Z.ai GLM-5.2 beats Kimi K2.7 Code on physics contest! We gave both models the same three prompts and asked them to build self contained HTML5 sims with real physics and no libraries: 1. Pool break 2. Block on a bed of springs 3. Galton board Outputs: GLM-5.2: 12,640 tokens Kimi K2.7 Code: 7,420 tokens GLM 5.2 nailed all three, and it did it with way more detail and polish. The break conserved momentum, the block bounced off the springs and the Galton beads spread into a clean bell curve. Kimi struggled on every scene: its block fell straight through the springs, its break didn't look realistic with the balls colliding all wrong, and on the Galton board its balls overlapped and piled into each other instead of spreading out

atomic.chat

60,899 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

I just tested GLM 5.2, Claude opus 4.8, and GPT 5.5 to see which one could rebuild my personal site in that whimsical ascii style GLM 5.2 held its own and went toe to toe with the other 2 top tier models lowkey impressed, look at the hero section it built here
1:36

I just tested GLM 5.2, Claude opus 4.8, and GPT 5.5 to see which one could rebuild my personal site in that whimsical ascii style GLM 5.2 held its own and went toe to toe with the other 2 top tier models lowkey impressed, look at the hero section it built here

Ann Nguyen

33,577 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

How does the #1 open Text Arena model hold up in agentic coding tasks? We tested GLM-5 in Code Arena with head-to-head SVG prompts vs. top frontier AI models. What do you think? Scores for Z.ai 's GLM-5 in Code Arena coming soon. Test out GLM-5 for yourself and get voting.
0:52

How does the #1 open Text Arena model hold up in agentic coding tasks? We tested GLM-5 in Code Arena with head-to-head SVG prompts vs. top frontier AI models. What do you think? Scores for Z.ai 's GLM-5 in Code Arena coming soon. Test out GLM-5 for yourself and get voting.

Arena.ai

115,220 Aufrufe • vor 6 Monaten

Introducing GLM 5.2 for autoresearch GLM 5.2 is the first open weights model we've tried on our autoresearch pipeline that's proven capable for real research tasks. With Fable 5's restrictions on research, having an open weights alternative is a huge win for open source Watch it carry out fully async vs colocated sync RL training on Harbor code contests across two 8xH100 nodes on top of SkyRL. Resolves setup issues, tracks runs to completion, and produces a full comparison of throughput and reward stability
0:48

Introducing GLM 5.2 for autoresearch GLM 5.2 is the first open weights model we've tried on our autoresearch pipeline that's proven capable for real research tasks. With Fable 5's restrictions on research, having an open weights alternative is a huge win for open source Watch it carry out fully async vs colocated sync RL training on Harbor code contests across two 8xH100 nodes on top of SkyRL. Resolves setup issues, tracks runs to completion, and produces a full comparison of throughput and reward stability

alphaXiv

271,013 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat