download dots

GLM vs DeepSeek

Two open-weight families met head to head in the same test. DeepSeek V4 Flash built the best-looking app at a fraction of the field's cost (Aug 1, 2026). GLM-5.2 produced the cleanest behavioral finding we have recorded, refusing to add a login screen nobody asked for (Jul 30, 2026), and started saving your data properly in that same Aug 1 test. This page is a routing matrix, not a scoreboard.

Last updated: September 2026

Quick Comparison Table

Feature GLM-5.2 (Zhipu) DeepSeek V4 (DeepSeek)
Weights ✅ Open — MIT weights, plus a managed API on z.ai ✅ Open — MIT covers code and weights
Live models GLM-5.2, GLM-5-Turbo, GLM-4.7, plus the GLM-4.5 line deepseek-v4-flash, deepseek-v4-pro — the only two
Context window 1M tokens, max output 128K 1M tokens, max output 384K
Multimodal Text-to-text (vision in the GLM-V line) Not stated for V4
Price per 1M tokens (as of Aug 2026) $1.4 in / $4.4 out, cached input $0.26 · GLM-4.7 $0.6/$2.2 (source) Flash $0.44 / $1.32 peak, $0.22/$0.66 off-peak · Pro $1.32 / $3.96 peak, $0.66/$1.98 off-peak (source)
Headline public benchmark Vendor-published: Terminal-Bench 2.1 81.0, SWE-bench Pro 62.1 Vendor-published V4 evals — TSK-1 is the controlled evidence below
What we found Only model to refuse a login screen nobody asked for (Jul 30, 2026); saves your data properly since Aug 1, 2026 Best-looking app at a fraction of the field's cost (Aug 1, 2026); cheapest, fastest, cleanest run measured (Aug 3, 2026)
Best for Doing the right thing with a loose request, long-horizon engineering Visual polish, breadth of data wiring, cost-sensitive volume

TL;DR: DeepSeek V4 Flash built the best-looking app on Aug 1, 2026: light-and-dark theme, zero errors, clean on a phone, at a fraction of the field's cost. GLM-5.2 started saving your data properly and was the only model to refuse a login screen nobody asked for (Jul 30, 2026). Route by task inside Taskade Genesis.


What TSK-1 Found

We ran both families in the same tests, and the findings split by measure. DeepSeek V4 Flash built the best-looking app on Aug 1, 2026 at a fraction of the field's cost, and on Aug 3, 2026 it posted the cheapest, fastest, and cleanest run we have measured. GLM-5.2 produced the cleanest behavioral finding we have recorded: refusing the login screen nobody asked for (Jul 30, 2026). Its data saving arrived on Aug 1, 2026, in the same test DeepSeek won on looks.

  • DeepSeek: Aug 1, 2026 — best-looking app; Aug 3, 2026 — cheapest, fastest, and cleanest run measured; Aug 6, 2026 — most of your data wired up of any model measured (a record 60 fields, 8 automations, all four wordings word for word).
  • GLM: Jul 30, 2026 — refused the login screen nobody asked for, the only model to push back on quietly added work; Aug 1, 2026 — it saved your data properly, with a cosmetic theme issue as the only thing left open.

See the full evidence at /tsk/glm, /tsk/deepseek, and the TSK-1 hub.


GLM-5.2 vs DeepSeek V4 Flash

These two met in the same nine-model test, and the distance between them is narrower than the price gap suggests. DeepSeek V4 Flash won Aug 1, 2026 outright on looks: the only build with a coherent light-and-dark theme, zero errors, and a clean 390px layout on a phone — and it did it at a fraction of the field's cost. GLM-5.2 was in the same test, and its story there is a near-miss: it saved your data properly for the first time — it had not managed that on Jul 30, 2026 — with a cosmetic theme issue as the only thing left open. A cosmetic theme defect is exactly the class of issue this testing is there to catch before a build ships.

The telling detail is that both families now save your data properly. GLM went from doing none of it on Jul 30, 2026 to a working setup on Aug 1, 2026. DeepSeek took the looks win again on Aug 2, 2026 with its data saving checked end to end — eleven files, and both themes checked out. Both ship MIT weights, so the economics question is the rate card rather than the license: DeepSeek V4 Flash is the cheaper of the two on published rates, and its efficiency record stands — cheapest, fastest, and cleanest run on a real customer's request (Aug 3, 2026).


GLM-5.2 vs DeepSeek V4 Pro

One rung up, the split becomes judgment versus breadth. GLM-5.2's defining moment happened before it could save your data at all: on Jul 30, 2026 it thought about adding a login screen nobody had asked for and declined, offering an "Add Login" suggestion instead — the only model in that test to push back on quietly added work. That is a judgment finding no parameter count captures.

DeepSeek V4 Pro's defining moments are breadth and finishing what it starts. On Aug 6, 2026 it wired 8 automations and a record 60 fields, reproducing all four of the customer's wordings word for word — the richest workspace memory of that test. On Aug 5, 2026 it won the tracker build as the cheapest app that actually opened and ran, even though the raw numbers pointed elsewhere, and it holds the biggest single-test jump we have measured in building what was asked for: 0 of 4 to 4 of 4 word for word on a bare-bones setting (Aug 2, 2026).


Choose GLM If…

A comparison that never concedes anything is not worth reading. GLM is the better pick in several common cases.

  • The request is loose and scope-creep is a real risk. GLM is the model that asked before it added a login screen nobody wanted (Jul 30, 2026).
  • Long-horizon engineering is the job. GLM-5.2 is positioned for exactly that, with a 1M-token context and 128K max output.
  • You want MIT weights and a supported endpoint. GLM-5.2's published weights are MIT, and Zhipu also publishes per-token pricing and cached-input rates on z.ai — so you can self-host, call the API, or move between them without a license renegotiation.
  • You want correct behavior graded by an outside test. The Jul 30, 2026 finding is the standing evidence.

Choose DeepSeek If…

  • Visual polish on a budget is the job. Aug 1, 2026 is the standing evidence: the cheapest model in the test produced the best-looking app.
  • A single step has to emit a lot at once. DeepSeek V4's 384K maximum output is triple GLM-5.2's 128K ceiling, which is the difference between generating a whole file set in one call and stitching several together.
  • You are wiring up a lot of your data. The record 60 fields and 8 automations of Aug 6, 2026 are the most of your data any model has wired up for us.
  • Your volume is high and your budget is tight. The published rate card is the cheapest on this page, and off-peak billing is exactly half of peak. Peak is 01:00-04:00 and 06:00-10:00 UTC on weekdays (as of August 2026), so scheduled batch work can sit entirely outside it.

The Taskade Angle: Route, Don't Standardize

Most comparison pages end with "pick one". The evidence for these two open-weight families points the other way: one owns looks and value, the other owns doing the right thing with a loose request. Serious teams run both and route between them.

Taskade routes across 15+ frontier models from OpenAI, Anthropic, and open-weight providers inside one workspace, with the AI allowance included in the subscription rather than a separate API account per lab. Paid plans start at Pro $10/mo billed annually, with Business $25, Max $100 and Enterprise $250 per month billed annually. You set the model per agent or per automation step, so a design pass on V4 Flash, a data-wiring pass on V4 Pro, and an ambiguity-sensitive pass on GLM-5.2 can each get the model that leads there. Leave a step on TSK-1 Auto and it adapts the depth instead — fast when the step is quick, deeper reasoning when it is not.

Four patterns that hold up:

  • Cheap model iterates, judgment model sanity-checks. Design loops on V4 Flash; scope decisions and unclear requests on GLM-5.2.
  • Breadth model wires, behavior model guards. A data-rich build on V4 Pro, with GLM on the steps where quietly added scope is the risk.
  • Every step lands in the same project graph. Whichever model runs a step, the result becomes shared workspace memory, so the next agent inherits context instead of re-deriving it.
  • Scheduled automations read from the same place. Model choice becomes a per-step setting, not a platform decision.

See 10 Best Open-Source AI LLMs in 2026 for how both families sit in the wider open-weight field.


Final Word: Judgment vs Value

GLM-5.2 is the judgment pick, the model that refused work nobody asked for, now saving your data properly with a cosmetic theme issue as its only open item. DeepSeek V4 is the value pick — the best-looking app at a fraction of the field's cost, the cheapest and fastest run we have measured, and the most of your data wired up, on the cheapest published rates here. Both families ship MIT weights, so the choice between them is about price, output ceiling, and which measure you need — not about licensing.

Neither is the winner. The winner is the setup that puts judgment where ambiguity lives and value where volume lives.

▲ Memory feeds Intelligence. ■ Intelligence triggers Execution. ● Execution creates Memory. Two open-weight families. One workspace. No single point of vendor failure.

This is the origin of living software. 🌱

Build with GLM and DeepSeek in one workspace →


TSK-1 Benchmark

Same request, both models

In the TSK-1 Benchmark, every model receives the same app request, word for word: build a working app that keeps what people enter, runs an automation, and answers questions about its own data, then take a follow-up change. Here is how GLM and DeepSeek did, tested inside Taskade Genesis.

Same test, same day ·

The family intake form, more models

Parents fill in a form on their phone with two to four photos, the teacher sees every family on one page, and then we ask for one more question on the form.

  • GLM-5Works

    Saved every answer and both photos, and the new teacher question showed on its gallery page, but no link led to that page.

  • GLM-4.7Works, with gaps

    Saved every answer and both photos, but the teacher page crashed on load.

  • DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813Works2 builds

    Both settings saved every answer and both photos, and the new teacher question landed. With max thinking, the follow-up turn finished the build.

  • DeepSeek V4 Pro, max thinkingWorks

    The 15-minute limit ended the build. The follow-up turn finished a form that saved every answer and both photos, with no made-up families.

  • DeepSeek V4.1 FlashWorks

    Saved every answer and both photos, and its new-family automation ran. Three sample families showed as real.

  • DeepSeek V4 ProWorks

    Saved every answer and both photos, and the new teacher question landed. Two sample families showed as real.

  • DeepSeek V4 Pro, high thinkingWorks, with gaps

    The form dropped every photo a parent picked, so the two-photo rule blocked every submission.

  • DeepSeek V3.2Works, with gaps2 builds

    Neither setting saved a family: one save was rejected, and the other sent the form to an address that does not exist.

One build per model unless a row says otherwise. Read it as a direction, not a final rank.

Zhipu · Tested Oct 2026

GLM

Interface
Emerging
Task
Strong
Memory
Emerging
Adapt
Strong

Best for: Good judgment when details are unclear

The model that said no. It considered adding a sign-in screen, decided the brief had not asked for one, and offered it as a suggestion instead. The only model to push back rather than quietly add something. Its apps have saved real data since an August test.

  • · GLM-5.2Built a two-page match tracker whose dashboard showed a 58% win rate over 12 sample matches: 7 wins and 5 losses.
  • · GLM-5.2Built a three-page client sign-up app with a 37-field submissions table and 31 of 32 questions word for word.

All GLM results →

DeepSeek · Tested Oct 2026

DeepSeek

Interface
Leading
Task
Strong
Memory
Strong
Adapt
Emerging

Best for: Polished apps with rich workspace data

DeepSeek combines rich apps with efficient builds. V4.1 Flash built the richest sales CRM and cookbook in their tests. Pro builds deep data but can leave the app locked or unfinished. In October both built a family intake form that saved every answer and both photos.

  • · DeepSeek V4.1 FlashBuilt a two-page family intake form that saved every answer and both photos, and its alert automation ran twice. The build ran past the 15-minute test limit.
  • · DeepSeek V4.1 FlashAdded the new teacher question and put the change live.

All DeepSeek results →

Interface, Task, Memory and Adapt are the four qualities TSK-1 grades: how finished the app feels, how closely it follows the request, whether it keeps your data, and how cleanly it handles follow-up changes. Read the method and every published test on the TSK-1 hub.

Open a live app built the same way

These are App Kits from the official Taskade account, not benchmark builds. Each one is a working app with projects, agents and automations, the same shape every benchmark request asks for. Open one, then clone it into your own workspace.

Browse all App Kits →

Verify the comparison yourself

This is our take. We’re biased: we make Taskade. Read the alternatives from the source:

When you are ready, build with Taskade Genesis or browse live apps from the Taskade community.

More Competitors & Alternatives

View All Alternatives ↗

Cursor

Codex vs Cursor in 2026: OpenAI's agentic coding system versus the AI-native code editor, with a per-task routing matrix, what Cursor's compute-based pricing actually buys, and the third path for people who want the finished app — Taskade Genesis.

Learn More

Cursor

Taskade Genesis vs Cursor in 2026. Cursor is one of the most-used AI-native code editors and ships new versions fast, the best-in-class agentic IDE for working engineers. Taskade Genesis is for the rest of the team (operators, founders, PMs), shipping deployed apps from one prompt with AI agents, workspace data, and 100+ bidirectional integrations included — and an AI allowance that comes with the subscription instead of being metered at API rates.

Learn More

Windsurf

Windsurf is now Devin Desktop — Cognition folded the IDE into the Devin product line and windsurf.com redirects to devin.ai. Taskade Genesis ships a deployed AI app workspace with built-in agents and 100+ integrations, so anyone on the team can use what gets built, not just the engineer who ran the prompt.

Learn More

Lovable

Codex Sites vs Lovable in 2026: OpenAI's Business-only, workspace-private app builder versus Lovable's full-stack code generator — with real 2026 pricing, an honest look at credit metering on both sides, and the prompt-to-app builder that publishes to the open web for everyone, Taskade Genesis.

Learn More

Lovable

The best Lovable alternatives in 2026, compared for people who ship business systems rather than codebases. Lovable is an excellent design-first builder that returns a React + Vite project you host and maintain. This page ranks eight alternatives by what you are actually building, states Lovable's real 2026 pricing with sources, and explains where Taskade Genesis fits: a running system with data, AI agents, automations, and app sign-in, with no deployment step.

Learn More

Lovable

Taskade vs Lovable, head-to-head for 2026. Taskade Genesis turns one prompt into a living app with AI agents, automations, and 100+ integrations you publish to the open web. Lovable generates React and Supabase code you deploy yourself.

Learn More

Bolt.new

Taskade Genesis vs Bolt.new in May 2026, after Bolt V2 (October 2025) Bolt Cloud + databases + hosting + Expo mobile, $40M ARR in 5 months, and StackBlitz's $105.5M Series B at ~$700M valuation. Bolt has the only browser-native WebContainers runtime in the category. Genesis ships deployed apps with AI Agents v2, 100+ bidirectional integrations, and Workspace DNA, flat $10/mo (billed annually) Pro, no token meter on bug fixes.

Learn More

Bolt.new

Taskade vs Bolt.new, head-to-head for 2026. Taskade Genesis ships a deployed app with AI agents, automations, and 100+ integrations from one prompt. Bolt.new generates React code in a browser sandbox, and Bolt Cloud now hosts it, but the app ships with no AI agents or automations.

Learn More

V0

Taskade Genesis vs v0 by Vercel in 2026 — after the v0.dev to v0.app rebrand, Figma and custom design-system import, the built-in Git panel, and agentic workflows. v0 ships best-in-class React/Next.js and shadcn code with the cleanest Figma-to-code path, now entering at Plus $30/user/mo with no annual billing. Taskade Genesis ships full deployed apps with a workspace backend, AI agents, and 100+ integrations on flat $10/mo billed annually.

Learn More

Imagine it. Run it live.

One prompt becomes a live app with agents, memory, and automations.