GLM-5.2 vs MiniMax M3.1 Flash
GLM-5.2 and MiniMax M3.1 Flash are closely matched at 44.8 and 48.5 on the LLM Stats Score. MiniMax M3.1 Flash is 4.4x cheaper per token.
Zhipu AI · MiniMax · Updated for 2026
Which is better?
GLM-5.2 and MiniMax M3.1 Flash are closely matched on the overall LLM Stats Score at 44.8 and 48.5.
In the 3 individual benchmarks reported for both models, MiniMax M3.1 Flash wins 3; this is a narrower head-to-head signal than the composite indexes.
On price, MiniMax M3.1 Flash is roughly 4.4x cheaper per token on a blended 3:1 input/output basis, which adds up quickly at production volume.
GLM-5.2 also accepts a larger context window (1,048,576 input tokens), making it the stronger choice for long documents and large codebases.
Based on current LLM Stats indexes, shared benchmarks, pricing, and model metadata for 2026.
Choose GLM-5.2
- you process long inputs — it offers a 1,048,576 token context window
- you need open weights you can self-host or fine-tune
Choose MiniMax M3.1 Flash
- your work emphasizes agents — it leads those capability indexes
- you value its reported benchmark strengths — it wins 3 of 3 exact shared results
- cost matters — it's about 4.4x cheaper per token
- you want the most recent training data — it shipped Oct 2026
At a glance
The differences that matter most.
Capability indexes
Additional strengths measured across groups of related public benchmarks
Individual benchmarks
19 reported for GLM-5.2 · 14 for MiniMax M3.1 Flash
GLM-5.2 outperforms in 0 benchmarks, while MiniMax M3.1 Flash is better at 3 benchmarks (DeepSWE 1.1, NL2Repo, PostTrainBench).
MiniMax M3.1 Flash significantly outperforms across most benchmarks.
Human preference
Blind head-to-head votes and playground preference scores
Pricing Analysis
Price comparison per million tokens
For input processing, GLM-5.2 ($0.75/1M tokens) is 5.0x more expensive than MiniMax M3.1 Flash ($0.15/1M tokens).
For output processing, GLM-5.2 ($2.40/1M tokens) is 4.0x more expensive than MiniMax M3.1 Flash ($0.60/1M tokens).
In conclusion, GLM-5.2 is more expensive than MiniMax M3.1 Flash.*
* Using a 3:1 ratio of input to output tokens
Context Window
Maximum input and output token capacity
GLM-5.2 accepts 1,048,576 input tokens compared to MiniMax M3.1 Flash's 1,000,000 tokens. GLM-5.2 can generate longer responses up to 1,048,576 tokens, while MiniMax M3.1 Flash is limited to 524,288 tokens.
Input capabilities
Documented input modalities across available providers
MiniMax M3.1 Flash supports multimodal inputs, whereas GLM-5.2 does not.
MiniMax M3.1 Flash can handle both text and other forms of data like images, making it suitable for multimodal applications.
GLM-5.2
MiniMax M3.1 Flash
License
Usage and distribution terms
GLM-5.2 is licensed under MIT, while MiniMax M3.1 Flash uses a proprietary license.
License differences may affect how you can use these models in commercial or open-source projects.
MIT
Open weights
Proprietary
Closed source
Release Timeline
When each model was launched
GLM-5.2 was released on 2026-06-16, while MiniMax M3.1 Flash was released on 2026-10-19.
MiniMax M3.1 Flash is 4 months newer than GLM-5.2.
Jun 16, 2026
4 months ago
Oct 19, 2026
0 days ago
4mo newerKnowledge Cutoff
When training data ends
Neither model specifies a knowledge cutoff date.
Unable to compare the recency of their training data.
Provider Availability
GLM-5.2 is available from DeepInfra, Fireworks, FriendliAI, Novita, Together, ZAI. MiniMax M3.1 Flash is available from MiniMax.
GLM-5.2
MiniMax M3.1 Flash
Outputs Comparison
Judge for yourself.
Run your own prompts against GLM-5.2 and MiniMax M3.1 Flash side-by-side, then vote on the output you prefer.
FAQ
Common questions about GLM-5.2 vs MiniMax M3.1 Flash.