GLM 5.2 vs Ling 3.0 Flash VL
Price, context window & benchmark comparison
VS
Compare different models
Verdict: Ling 3.0 Flash VL is 11.1× cheaper than GLM 5.2 on a typical 3:1 input/output mix. GLM 5.2 scores higher on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index (33.7 vs 24.6). GLM 5.2 has the larger context window (1M vs 262K).
| GLM 5.2 | Ling 3.0 Flash VL | |
|---|---|---|
| Input price / 1M | $0.65 | $0.06 |
| Output price / 1M | $2.04 | $0.18 |
| Blended price (3:1) | $1.00 | $0.09 |
| Cached input / 1M | $0.12 | $0.012 |
| Context window | 1M | 262K |
| Max output | 131K | 33K |
| Intelligence index | 33.7 | 24.6 |
| Coding index | 68.8 | 57 |
| Providers | — | — |
| Best provider uptime (30m) | — | — |
| Vision input | No | Yes |
| Reasoning | Yes | Yes |
| Tool calling | Yes | Yes |
| Released | 2026-06-16 | 2026-09-10 |
| Retirement | — | — |
Cost calculator
FAQ
Which is cheaper, GLM 5.2 or Ling 3.0 Flash VL?
Ling 3.0 Flash VL is 11.1× cheaper than GLM 5.2 on a typical 3:1 input/output mix.
GLM 5.2 vs Ling 3.0 Flash VL: which has a bigger context window?
GLM 5.2: 1,048,576 tokens. Ling 3.0 Flash VL: 262,144 tokens.
How much would 1 million requests cost?
At 2,000 input + 500 output tokens per request: GLM 5.2 ≈ $2,320, Ling 3.0 Flash VL ≈ $210.00.
More comparisons
GLM 5.2 vs GLM 5.3 PrimeGLM 5.2 vs Qwen3.8 Max PrimeGLM 5.2 vs Command A+GLM 5.2 vs GPT-6 Luna ProGLM 5.2 vs GPT-6 LunaGLM 5.2 vs GPT-6 Sol ProGLM 5.2 vs GPT-6 SolGLM 5.2 vs Claude Opus 5.5GLM 5.2 vs MiMo-V2.6-Pro-UltraSpeedGLM 5.2 vs MiMo-V2.6-FlashGLM 5.2 vs Grok 4.7GLM 5.2 vs Qwen3.8 Omni FlashGLM 5.2 vs GLM 5.3 FlashXGLM 5.2 vs DeepSeek V4.1 FlashGLM 5.2 vs GPT-6 AstraGLM 5.2 vs GPT-6 Astra ProLing 3.0 Flash VL vs GLM 5.3 PrimeLing 3.0 Flash VL vs Qwen3.8 Max PrimeLing 3.0 Flash VL vs Command A+Ling 3.0 Flash VL vs GPT-6 Luna ProLing 3.0 Flash VL vs GPT-6 LunaLing 3.0 Flash VL vs GPT-6 Sol ProLing 3.0 Flash VL vs GPT-6 SolLing 3.0 Flash VL vs Claude Opus 5.5