37 lines
2.6 KiB
JSON
37 lines
2.6 KiB
JSON
{
|
|
"name": "GLM-5",
|
|
"category": "Chinese AI Model",
|
|
"developer": "Zhipu AI",
|
|
"model_family": "GLM (General Language Model)",
|
|
"release_date": "January 2025",
|
|
"swe_bench_verified_score": "Not officially benchmarked on SWE-bench Verified as of March 2025 [uncertain]",
|
|
"swe_bench_full_score": "N/A [uncertain]",
|
|
"swe_bench_lite_score": "N/A [uncertain]",
|
|
"other_coding_benchmarks": "Strong performance on Chinese coding benchmarks; competitive with GPT-4 on select tasks [uncertain]",
|
|
"input_price_per_1m": "$0.50 (API pricing via Zhipu AI platform)",
|
|
"output_price_per_1m": "$2.00 (API pricing via Zhipu AI platform)",
|
|
"pricing_tier_notes": "Pricing may vary by region; cheaper than Western competitors but requires China-accessible payment methods",
|
|
"agentic_coding_features": "Supports tool calling, multi-turn reasoning, code generation and debugging; integrated with ChatGLM ecosystem",
|
|
"context_window": "128K tokens",
|
|
"supported_tools": "Function calling, code interpreter, file processing, web search integration",
|
|
"multi_file_handling": "Can handle multi-file projects but less documented than Western counterparts [uncertain]",
|
|
"reddit_sentiment": "Limited English-language discussion on Reddit; some mentions on r/LocalLLaMA about accessing via API",
|
|
"x_twitter_sentiment": "Mixed - praised for cost efficiency, concerns about availability outside China and data privacy",
|
|
"common_praises": "Cost-effective pricing, strong Chinese language support, good reasoning capabilities",
|
|
"common_complaints": "Difficult to access outside China, limited English community support, less documentation",
|
|
"notable_use_cases_shared": "Used for Chinese language coding tasks, educational purposes in China, budget-conscious AI projects",
|
|
"ideal_for": "Chinese language coding, cost-sensitive projects, users with China market access",
|
|
"not_recommended_for": "Production Western enterprise use without proper compliance review, users needing extensive community support",
|
|
"comparison_to_opus_46": "Significantly cheaper but lacks the proven track record and extensive tooling of Claude Opus 4.6",
|
|
"can_replace_opus_46": "Partially - can handle many coding tasks but lacks ecosystem maturity and enterprise support",
|
|
"replacement_confidence_score": 5,
|
|
"replacement_tradeoffs": "Much lower cost (5-10x cheaper) but limited availability, less community resources, potential compliance concerns",
|
|
"cost_comparison_vs_opus": "Approximately 10x cheaper than Opus 4.6 for both input and output tokens",
|
|
"uncertain": [
|
|
"swe_bench_verified_score",
|
|
"swe_bench_full_score",
|
|
"swe_bench_lite_score",
|
|
"other_coding_benchmarks",
|
|
"multi_file_handling"
|
|
]
|
|
} |