gemini-3.1-flash-lite
Checking current pricing…
Chat comparison
gemini-3.1-flash-litevsglm-5.2
Compare the things that matter before you build: current price, capabilities, and latest aggregated LLM7 statistics.
Current pricing
See the cost difference clearly
glm-5.2
Checking current pricing…
What's different
Only capabilities that differ between these models are listed. Green highlights the broader supported option or larger context window.
Context window
gemini-3.1-flash-lite
256,000 tokens
glm-5.2Better fit
976,000 tokens
Input formats
gemini-3.1-flash-lite
text, image
glm-5.2
text
Vision
gemini-3.1-flash-liteBetter fit
Supported
glm-5.2
Not supported
Reasoning
gemini-3.1-flash-lite
Not supported
glm-5.2Better fit
Supported
Latest LLM7 statistics
Recent aggregated percentages and response-time metrics from LLM7, not a global model benchmark or traffic disclosure.
Recent stability
gemini-3.1-flash-lite
99.82%
glm-5.2
100%
Average response time
gemini-3.1-flash-lite
4,081.47 ms
glm-5.2
3,617.34 ms
P95 API latency
gemini-3.1-flash-lite
10,000 ms
glm-5.2
10,000 ms
Side-by-side trends
Shared charts make the observed differences easier to read. Metrics without enough history stay hidden.
Request success rate
Both models on the same scale
gemini-3.1-flash-lite: 100%glm-5.2: 100%
Average API latency
Both models on the same scale
gemini-3.1-flash-lite: 3,229 msglm-5.2: 4,751 ms
P95 API latency
Both models on the same scale
gemini-3.1-flash-lite: 10,000 msglm-5.2: 30,000 ms
Estimate your workload
Published rates are loaded from the pricing API; per-request quotes are billed from actual provider usage.
Checking current pricing…
Checking current pricing…
Quick take
- glm-5.2 has a larger context window.
- gemini-3.1-flash-lite supports image input while the other model does not.
- The recent stability rates are too close to distinguish meaningfully.