Free to start

Z.ai: GLM 5.2 vs 0GM-1.0-35B-A3B

Try both on us. Starter credit covers your first requests, then one key routes GLM 5.2 and 0GM-1.0-35B-A3B. Switch by changing the model name.

Compare routesProviders, price, context, and policy posture in one view.

Use auto when uptime mattersKeep a primary model and let fallback handle provider failures.

Same API shapeUse the OpenAI client and set the model you want.

Practical read

Monthly evidence

Z.ai: GLM 5.2 has more Credits provider routes and the larger context window. 0GM-1.0-35B-A3B has the lower published input-plus-output rate. There is not enough recent probe data to compare speed.

$2.2999/1MZ.ai: GLM 5.2 cheapest route

$0.5908/1M0GM-1.0-35B-A3B cheapest route

not enough dataZ.ai: GLM 5.2 fastest measured p50 TTFT

not enough data0GM-1.0-35B-A3B fastest measured p50 TTFT

The price comparison adds each route's rate for one million input tokens and one million output tokens; your cost depends on your input/output mix. Prices and live route measurements can change. Use the monthly reports when you need a stable evidence window, then run a small task-specific eval before choosing a production default.

Z.ai: GLM 5.20GM-1.0-35B-A3B

Model idz-ai/glm-5.2zero-g/0gm-1.0-35b-a3b

Publisher Z.AI 0G Private Computer

AI IQ IQ 118#50 —

Context1,048,576 tokens262,144 tokens

Credits provider routes321

Cheapest route$2.2999/1M$0.5908/1M

Cached input$0.131875/1M to $0.84611/1M$0.028134/1M

Privacy posturehas Confidential route (E2EE + ZDR)has provider TEE claim

Fastest measured p50 TTFTnot enough datanot enough data

Highest measured throughputnot enough datanot enough data

Recent route uptime rangenot enough datanot enough data

Modes chat chat

Z.ai: GLM 5.2 routes

Overview32 Credits routes
PricingInput, cached input, and output rates
BenchmarksTrustedRouter and external sources
ProvidersAll serving providers

0GM-1.0-35B-A3B routes

Overview1 Credits routes

Related comparisons

Browse every comparison

Z.ai: GLM 5.2 vs Z.ai: GLM 5.365 combined provider routes
Z.ai: GLM 5.2 vs Z.ai: GLM 5.3 Flash64 combined provider routes
MoonshotAI: Kimi K3 vs Z.ai: GLM 5.260 combined provider routes
DeepSeek: DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731 vs Z.ai: GLM 5.258 combined provider routes
DeepSeek: DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Z.ai: GLM 5.256 combined provider routes
OpenAI: gpt-oss-120b vs Z.ai: GLM 5.255 combined provider routes
Qwen: Qwen3.8 27B vs Z.ai: GLM 5.252 combined provider routes
MoonshotAI: Kimi K2.6 vs Z.ai: GLM 5.249 combined provider routes

Production choice

Pick a default model. Keep fallback enabled.

TrustedRouter is useful when you know the model you want, but still need provider rollover, budget limits, usage records, and a prompt path you can verify.

OpenAI clientPython

client = OpenAI(
    base_url="https://api-azure.trustedrouter.com/v1",
    api_key="sk-tr-v1-..."
)

response = client.chat.completions.create(
    model="z-ai/glm-5.2",
    messages=messages,
)

Questions

Which should I use, Z.ai: GLM 5.2 or 0GM-1.0-35B-A3B?

Z.ai: GLM 5.2 has more Credits provider routes and the larger context window. 0GM-1.0-35B-A3B has the lower published input-plus-output rate. There is not enough recent probe data to compare speed.

Is Z.ai: GLM 5.2 or 0GM-1.0-35B-A3B cheaper?

The current cheapest TrustedRouter route is $2.2999/1M for Z.ai: GLM 5.2 and $0.5908/1M for 0GM-1.0-35B-A3B. The comparison uses current catalog prices and updates as provider pricing changes.

Is Z.ai: GLM 5.2 or 0GM-1.0-35B-A3B faster?

Current measured p50 time to first token is not enough data for Z.ai: GLM 5.2 and not enough data for 0GM-1.0-35B-A3B. These are routed probe measurements, not vendor-advertised speeds, and update as new samples arrive.

Can I test Z.ai: GLM 5.2 and 0GM-1.0-35B-A3B with the same API?

Yes. Use the same OpenAI-compatible TrustedRouter base URL and API key, then change only the model id between z-ai/glm-5.2 and zero-g/0gm-1.0-35b-a3b. This makes side-by-side evals possible without maintaining two provider integrations.