Model Comparison
GLM-5.2 (max)
vs. M3
Comparing 2 AI models · 7 benchmarks · Z AI, MiniMax
Recommended Pick
Z GLM-5.2 (max)10 metric winsStrongest on: Throughput, TTFT, Latency
Best Value
M3
100.0 value score
59.1 reasoning / $0.52/1M
Lowest Price
M3
$0.30/1M input price
Best Reasoning
GLM-5.2 (max)
61.1 reasoning score
Blends available reasoning benchmarks
Best for Coding
GLM-5.2 (max)
68.8 coding index
Composite Indices
Higher is better; speed and price are normalized
Standard Benchmarks
Only benchmarks with data are shown
Differences That Matter
Best value
M3 has the strongest quality-to-price mix at 100.0 out of 100 value points.
Price gap
M3 is 4.3x cheaper on input tokens than GLM-5.2 (max).
Speed gap
GLM-5.2 (max) generates about 1.4x as many tokens per second as M3.
Reasoning gap
GLM-5.2 (max) leads M3 by 2.0 points on reasoning.
Coding gap
GLM-5.2 (max) leads M3 by 10.2 points on coding.
Response Face-Off
Run one prompt through the selected models and compare response quality with live speed and cost context.
GLM-5.2 (max)
Z AI
TTFT
—
Time
—
tok/s
—
Tokens
—
Cost
—
M3
MiniMax
TTFT
—
Time
—
tok/s
—
Tokens
—
Cost
—
Which answer was more useful?
Chat with leading AI models
Use Claude, ChatGPT, Gemini alongside with EU-Hosted Models like Deepseek, Qwen & Kimi.
EU-hosted inference
Servers in Germany & Finland. Designed to meet strict GDPR and ISO 27001 compliance requirements.
Full Comparison
| Metric | Top Pick Z GLM-5.2 (max) | Mi M3 |
|---|---|---|
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input Cost | $1.30/1M | $0.30/1M |
| Output Cost | $4.18/1M | $1.20/1M |
| Blended (3:1) | $2.02/1M | $0.52/1M |
| Specifications | ||
| Organization | Z AI | MiniMax |
| Release Date | Jun 16, 2026 | Jun 1, 2026 |
| Performance & Speed | ||
| Throughput | 115.0 tok/s | 80.7 tok/s |
| TTFT | 1071ms | 1155ms |
| Latency | 18461ms | 25948ms |
| Composite Indices | ||
| Value Score | 26.8 | 100.0 |
| Reasoning Score | 61.1 | 59.1 |
| Intelligence | 52.6 | 45.4 |
| Coding | 68.8 | 58.6 |
| Standard Benchmarks | ||
| GPQA | 89.5% | 92.9% |
| HLE | 41.1% | 39.0% |
| SciCode | 50.5% | 45.4% |
| LCR | 76.7% | 80.3% |
| IFBench | 73.3% | 82.9% |
| TAU-bench v2 | 99.1% | 88.9% |
| TerminalBench Hard | 50.8% | 42.4% |
Key Takeaways
M3 offers the best value at $0.30/1M,making it ideal for high-volume applications and cost-conscious projects.
GLM-5.2 (max) has the strongest reasoning profile with a 61.1 reasoning score,combining the available reasoning-heavy benchmarks.
GLM-5.2 (max) reaches a 68.8 coding index,making it the top choice for software development and code generation tasks.
All models support context windows of ∞+ tokens,suitable for processing lengthy documents and maintaining extended conversations.
When to Choose Each Model
GLM-5.2 (max)
- Complex reasoning tasks
- Research & analysis
- Code generation
- Software development
M3
- Cost-sensitive applications
- High-volume processing
