OpenAI compatible API · Attested · Public status

GPT 5.6 Luna vs Z.ai: GLM 5.2

GPT 5.6 Luna vs Z.ai: GLM 5.2: compare current API pricing, context, provider routes, privacy, p50 latency, and OpenAI-compatible access.

Verify gateway

Onebase URL to migrate

100sof models and routes

0prompt or output logs. Always.

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

GPT 5.6 Luna has the lower published input-plus-output rate and the larger context window. Z.ai: GLM 5.2 has more Credits provider routes. There is not enough recent probe data to compare speed.

$1.477/1MGPT 5.6 Luna cheapest route

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

not enough dataGPT 5.6 Luna fastest measured p50 TTFT

834 msZ.ai: GLM 5.2 fastest measured p50 TTFT via digitalocean

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.

GPT 5.6 LunaZ.ai: GLM 5.2

Model idopenai/gpt-5.6-luna-azz-ai/glm-5.2

Publisher OpenAI Z.AI

AI IQ — IQ 120#28

Context1,050,000 tokens1,048,576 tokens

Credits provider routes128

Cheapest route$1.477/1M$2.2999/1M

Cached input$0.0211/1M$0.110775/1M to $1.123575/1M

Privacy postureprovider posture varieshas provider E2EE route

Fastest measured p50 TTFTnot enough data834 ms via digitalocean

Highest measured throughputnot enough data127 tok/s via venice

Recent route uptime rangenot enough data66.67% to 100.00%

Modes chat chat

GPT 5.6 Luna routes

Overview1 Credits routes

Z.ai: GLM 5.2 routes

Overview28 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 5.354 combined provider routes
Z.ai: GLM 5.2 vs Z.ai: GLM 5.3 Flash53 combined provider routes
DeepSeek: DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731 vs Z.ai: GLM 5.252 combined provider routes
MoonshotAI: Kimi K3 vs Z.ai: GLM 5.252 combined provider routes
OpenAI: gpt-oss-120b vs Z.ai: GLM 5.250 combined provider routes
MoonshotAI: Kimi K2.6 vs Z.ai: GLM 5.247 combined provider routes
DeepSeek: DeepSeek V4 Pro 0423 vs Z.ai: GLM 5.245 combined provider routes
DeepSeek: DeepSeek V4 Flash 0423 vs Z.ai: GLM 5.244 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="openai/gpt-5.6-luna-az",
    messages=messages,
)

Questions

Which should I use, GPT 5.6 Luna or Z.ai: GLM 5.2?

GPT 5.6 Luna has the lower published input-plus-output rate and the larger context window. Z.ai: GLM 5.2 has more Credits provider routes. There is not enough recent probe data to compare speed.

Is GPT 5.6 Luna or Z.ai: GLM 5.2 cheaper?

The current cheapest TrustedRouter route is $1.477/1M for GPT 5.6 Luna and $2.2999/1M for Z.ai: GLM 5.2. The comparison uses current catalog prices and updates as provider pricing changes.

Is GPT 5.6 Luna or Z.ai: GLM 5.2 faster?

Current measured p50 time to first token is not enough data for GPT 5.6 Luna and 834 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 GPT 5.6 Luna 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 openai/gpt-5.6-luna-az and z-ai/glm-5.2. This makes side-by-side evals possible without maintaining two provider integrations.