Free to start

Anthropic: Claude Haiku 4.5 vs Z.ai: GLM 5.2

Try both on us. Starter credit covers your first requests, then one key routes Claude Haiku 4.5 and GLM 5.2. 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 the lower published input-plus-output rate, more Credits provider routes, the larger context window and the lower measured p50 time to first token.

$6.33/1MAnthropic: Claude Haiku 4.5 cheapest route

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

950 msAnthropic: Claude Haiku 4.5 fastest measured p50 TTFT via anthropic

714 msZ.ai: GLM 5.2 fastest measured p50 TTFT via friendli

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.

Anthropic: Claude Haiku 4.5Z.ai: GLM 5.2

Model idanthropic/claude-haiku-4.5z-ai/glm-5.2

Publisher Anthropic Z.AI

AI IQ IQ 100#120 IQ 118#48

Context200,000 tokens1,048,576 tokens

Credits provider routes132

Cheapest route$6.33/1M$2.2999/1M

Cached input$0.1055/1M$0.131875/1M to $0.84611/1M

Privacy postureprovider posture varieshas Confidential route (E2EE + ZDR)

Fastest measured p50 TTFT950 ms via anthropic714 ms via friendli

Highest measured throughputnot enough data125 tok/s via arcee

Recent route uptime range83.33%66.67% to 100.00%

Modes chat messages chat

Anthropic: Claude Haiku 4.5 routes

Overview1 Credits routes

Z.ai: GLM 5.2 routes

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

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 5.256 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.trustedrouter.com/v1",
    api_key="sk-tr-v1-..."
)

response = client.chat.completions.create(
    model="anthropic/claude-haiku-4.5",
    messages=messages,
)

Questions

Which should I use, Anthropic: Claude Haiku 4.5 or Z.ai: GLM 5.2?

Z.ai: GLM 5.2 has the lower published input-plus-output rate, more Credits provider routes, the larger context window and the lower measured p50 time to first token.

Is Anthropic: Claude Haiku 4.5 or Z.ai: GLM 5.2 cheaper?

The current cheapest TrustedRouter route is $6.33/1M for Anthropic: Claude Haiku 4.5 and $2.2999/1M for Z.ai: GLM 5.2. The comparison uses current catalog prices and updates as provider pricing changes.

Is Anthropic: Claude Haiku 4.5 or Z.ai: GLM 5.2 faster?

Current measured p50 time to first token is 950 ms for Anthropic: Claude Haiku 4.5 and 714 ms for Z.ai: GLM 5.2. These are routed probe measurements, not vendor-advertised speeds, and update as new samples arrive.

Can I test Anthropic: Claude Haiku 4.5 and Z.ai: GLM 5.2 with the same API?

Yes. Use the same OpenAI-compatible TrustedRouter base URL and API key, then change only the model id between anthropic/claude-haiku-4.5 and z-ai/glm-5.2. This makes side-by-side evals possible without maintaining two provider integrations.