GLM 5.2 vs Claude Fable 5: agentic coding at a fraction of the cost

Описание и применение

GLM 5.2 обеспечивает такой же план и код, как Claude Fable 5, но за четверть стоимости, благодаря открытым весам и низкой цене за токен.

Задача

Developers need to run agentic coding loops efficiently without paying high per‑token costs.

Результат

GLM 5.2 produced equally good plans and code as Claude Fable 5 but at ~25% of the cost and with open‑weight licensing, making it the default for routine agentic coding.

Рабочий процесс

• 1. Prepare a repo context and a prompt that asks the model to redesign a project plan and start implementation.
• 2. Run the same prompt on Claude Fable 5 via its API, record wall‑clock time (~9 min) and cost (~$10).
• 3. Run the same prompt on GLM 5.2 via its API, record wall‑clock time (~17 min) and cost ($2.76).
• 4. Compare output quality (both produce clean plans and usable code).
• 5. Analyze token usage: note that output tokens dominate cost and Fable 5 is ~11× more expensive per output token.
• 6. Decide on model usage: use Fable 5 for hard, high‑stakes tasks; use GLM 5.2 for routine plan‑and‑implement loops.
• 7. Optionally self‑host GLM 5.2 to eliminate token billing entirely.

Доказательства

Fable 5 finished in about 9 min and cost me a little over $10. GLM 5.2 took about 17 min and cost $2.76.

Источник

GLM 5.2 is $1.40 in and $4.40 out per million tokens, compared to $10.00 in and $50.00 out for Fable 5.

Источник

Both models produced clean plans and usable first‑pass code.

Источник