AI Models · Open-Source vs Paid

GLM 5.2 Open vs Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite Paid

GLM 5.2 vs Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite compared — price per token, context window, multimodality, openness and which to choose. Can the open-source model replace the paid one? Full 2026 breakdown.

Prices & specs refreshed from live data · OpenSourceAI.tech

Open-model prices = cheapest provider via OpenRouter; official maker rates may be higher.

Choose GLM 5.2 if you want to self-host, keep your data private and skip per-token fees — it's open-weight and runs on your own hardware. Choose Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite if you want frontier capability through a managed API with zero infrastructure to run.

GLM 5.2 vs Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite specs

SpecGLM 5.2Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite
MakerZ.AIGoogle
TypeOpen-weightProprietary
Context window1M tokens1M tokens
Input price$0.78/M · free self-host$0.25/M
Output price$2.44/M · free self-host$1.5/M
Vision / multimodalNoYes
Tool / function callingYesYes
Self-hostableYesNo (API only)
LicenseMITProprietary

Feature comparison

CapabilityGLM 5.2Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite
Open weights (downloadable)
Self-hostable
Runs fully offline
Vision / multimodal
Tool / function calling
1M+ context window

Benchmarks: GLM 5.2 vs Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite

Independent benchmark scores measured by Artificial Analysis. Higher is better (except latency).

GLM 5.2
Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite
Intelligence index
51.1
25
Coding index
68.8
34.7
GPQA
89.5%
82.2%
Humanity's Last Exam
40.1%
16.2%
Long Context Reasoning
71.3%
65.3%
SciCode
50.5%
41.9%
IFBench
73.3%
77.2%
τ²-Bench
99.1%
31.3%
τ-Bench Banking
26.8%
8.7%
Terminal-Bench
77.9%
31.1%
Terminal-Bench Hard
50.8%
24.2%
Speed
198.1 tok/s
326.9 tok/s
Latency
0.85s
4.94s
Intelligence per $
23.8
44.4

Benchmark data by Artificial Analysis.

How GLM 5.2 and Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite score

🏆 Best value & openness: GLM 5.2 (4.6 vs 3.4 / 5)
CriterionGLM 5.2Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite
Cost-efficiency4.54.5
Context window5.05.0
Openness5.01.5
Self-hosting5.01.0
Multimodality3.55.0

Scores come from live data — output price (cost), context length, open vs closed weights (openness & self-hosting) and vision/tool support (multimodality). Raw task quality isn't scored here; it depends on your benchmark — see the verdict.

What each model is

GLM 5.2 Open

Z.AI · Open-weight

GLM 5.2 is a large-scale reasoning model from Z.ai. It supports text input and output with a 1M-token context window, and is suited for long-horizon agent workflows, project-level software engineering,...

Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite Paid

Google · Proprietary

Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite is Google’s GA high-efficiency multimodal model optimized for low-latency, high-volume workloads. It supports text, image, video, audio, and PDF inputs, and is designed for lightweight agentic...

Other models in these families

These variants are tracked but not compared here — one page per family keeps the comparison readable.

Other variants tracked
GLM 5GLM 5.1GLM 4.7GLM 4.7 FlashGLM 4.6GLM 4.5 AirGLM 5 TurboGLM 5V TurboGLM 4.5GLM 4.6VGLM 4.5V
Other variants tracked
Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite

Frequently asked questions

Is GLM 5.2 as good as Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite?

GLM 5.2 is open-weight and competitive on many tasks, but Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite may still lead on the hardest reasoning and agentic work. The gap keeps narrowing — benchmark both on your actual use case before deciding.

Can I run GLM 5.2 locally?

Yes. GLM 5.2 has open weights, so you can self-host it on your own GPUs or run it via a low-cost API. Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite is API-only and cannot be self-hosted.

GLM 5.2 vs Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite — which should I pick in 2026?

Choose GLM 5.2 if you want to self-host, keep your data private and skip per-token fees — it's open-weight and runs on your own hardware. Choose Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite if you want frontier capability through a managed API with zero infrastructure to run.

People also compare

Explore more open-source AI

Browse the full open-source model leaderboard, thousands of tools and live benchmarks — all in one place.

Open the leaderboard →