DeepSeek OCR 2 vs GLM-5V-Turbo vs MiniMax-M2.5-highspeed
GLM-5V-Turbo comes out ahead, 49 to 41 and 32 on our weighted score, though DeepSeek OCR 2 is 46% cheaper per token.
DeepSeekDeepSeek OCR 2
32/100- ECI—
- Price$0.89 / $1.47
- Context8K
- Our pick
Z.ai (Zhipu)GLM-5V-Turbo
49/100- ECI—
- Price$1.20 / $4.00
- Context200K
MiniMaxMiniMax-M2.5-highspeed
41/100- ECI—
- Price$0.60 / $2.40
- Context205K
GLM-5V-Turbo is our pick
GLM-5V-Turbo is the better all-round choice, scoring 49/100 against MiniMax-M2.5-highspeed (41) and DeepSeek OCR 2 (32). It leads on inputs & features. The score weighs price 50%, inputs & features 30%, context window 20%. None of the shared benchmarks cover every model here yet, so capability is left out of this verdict.
- CapabilityNot enough dataNo independent benchmark covers every model here yet
- Lowest priceDeepSeek OCR 2DeepSeek OCR 2 $1.03 · MiniMax-M2.5-highspeed $1.05 · GLM-5V-Turbo $1.90 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
- Longest contextMiniMax-M2.5-highspeedMiniMax-M2.5-highspeed 204,800 · GLM-5V-Turbo 200,000 · DeepSeek OCR 2 8,192 tokens
- Widest inputsGLM-5V-TurboDeepSeek OCR 2: Text, Images · GLM-5V-Turbo: Text, Images, PDFs, Video · MiniMax-M2.5-highspeed: Text
- Self-hostingDeepSeek OCR 2 and MiniMax-M2.5-highspeedPublishes downloadable weights
| Measure | Weight | DeepSeek OCR 2 | GLM-5V-Turbo | MiniMax-M2.5-highspeed |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Price | 50% | 49 | 37 | 49 |
| Inputs & features | 30% | 25 | 80 | 35 |
| Context window | 20% | 0 | 32 | 32 |
| Overall | 100% | 32/100 | 49/100 | 41/100 |
Left out because at least one model lacks the data: capability. The remaining weights were rescaled.
Every spec in one table
Highlighted cells lead their row. Dashes mean the data is not published.
| Specification | DeepSeek OCR 2DeepSeek | GLM-5V-TurboZ.ai (Zhipu) | MiniMax-M2.5-highspeedMiniMax |
|---|---|---|---|
| Capability | |||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | — | — | — |
| ECI rank | — | — | — |
| Price per million tokens | |||
| Input | $0.89 | $1.20 | $0.60 (best) |
| Output | $1.47 (best) | $4.00 | $2.40 |
| Cached input | — | $0.24 | $0.06 (best) |
| Blended (3:1) | $1.03 (best) | $1.90 | $1.05 |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | Same rate | Same rate |
| Price source | Median of 1 providers | Official Z.AI API | Official MiniMax (minimax.io) API |
| Limits | |||
| Context window | 8,192 tokens | 200,000 tokens | 204,800 tokens (best) |
| Max output | 8,192 tokens | 131,072 tokens (best) | 131,072 tokens (best) |
| Inputs and features | |||
| Text | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Images | Yes | Yes | No |
| PDFs | No | Yes | No |
| Audio | No | No | No |
| Video | No | Yes | No |
| Reasoning | No | Yes | Yes |
| Tool calling | No | Yes | Yes |
| Structured output | No | No | No |
| Availability | |||
| Weights | Open | Proprietary | Open |
| API model ID | — | glm-5v-turbo | MiniMax-M2.5-highspeed |
| API providers | 2 | 14 (best) | 7 |
| Released | Jan 27, 2026 | Apr 1, 2026 | Feb 13, 2026 |
| Knowledge cutoff | — | — | — |
What would a month cost?
Enter your expected volume in millions of tokens. List prices only; caching and batch discounts would lower these.
- DeepSeek OCR 2$11.83
- GLM-5V-Turbo$20.00
- MiniMax-M2.5-highspeed$10.80
Which should you choose?
Which is better: DeepSeek OCR 2, GLM-5V-Turbo or MiniMax-M2.5-highspeed?
GLM-5V-Turbo is the better all-round choice, scoring 49/100 against MiniMax-M2.5-highspeed (41) and DeepSeek OCR 2 (32). It leads on inputs & features. The score weighs price 50%, inputs & features 30%, context window 20%. None of the shared benchmarks cover every model here yet, so capability is left out of this verdict.
Which is cheaper, DeepSeek OCR 2, GLM-5V-Turbo or MiniMax-M2.5-highspeed?
DeepSeek OCR 2 is cheaper at $0.89 input / $1.47 output per million tokens (median across 1 API provider). MiniMax-M2.5-highspeed costs $0.60 input / $2.40 output per million tokens (official MiniMax (minimax.io) API price); GLM-5V-Turbo costs $1.20 input / $4.00 output per million tokens (official Z.AI API price). At a typical mix of three input tokens to one output token, that is $1.03 per million tokens for DeepSeek OCR 2 versus $1.05 for MiniMax-M2.5-highspeed (1× as much) and $1.90 for GLM-5V-Turbo (1.8× as much).
Which scores higher on benchmarks?
There is no independent benchmark that covers all three models yet. DeepSeek OCR 2 has not been scored yet, GLM-5V-Turbo has not been scored yet and MiniMax-M2.5-highspeed has not been scored yet.
Which is better for coding?
There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for DeepSeek OCR 2, GLM-5V-Turbo and MiniMax-M2.5-highspeed yet, so there is no like-for-like coding score. Test both on a sample of your own tasks. Note that DeepSeek OCR 2 does not support tool calling, which most coding agents need.
Which has the bigger context window?
MiniMax-M2.5-highspeed has the largest context window at 204,800 tokens, against 200,000 for GLM-5V-Turbo and 8,192 for DeepSeek OCR 2. Maximum output per response: DeepSeek OCR 2 up to 8,192, GLM-5V-Turbo up to 131,072, MiniMax-M2.5-highspeed up to 131,072 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
DeepSeek OCR 2 accepts text and images; GLM-5V-Turbo accepts text, images, PDFs and video; MiniMax-M2.5-highspeed accepts text. GLM-5V-Turbo handles the widest range of inputs.
Are any of these open source?
DeepSeek OCR 2 and MiniMax-M2.5-highspeed publishes its weights and can be self-hosted; GLM-5V-Turbo is proprietary.
Which is newer?
GLM-5V-Turbo is the newest, released Apr 1, 2026. MiniMax-M2.5-highspeed came out Feb 13, 2026; DeepSeek OCR 2 came out Jan 27, 2026.
How do you decide the winner?
Each model gets a 0–100 score on capability (50%, independent benchmark results); price (25%, blended price per million tokens (3 input : 1 output), log scale); inputs & features (15%, image, PDF, audio and video input, tool calling, structured output and reasoning); context window (10%, maximum tokens per request, log scale). Dimensions missing for any model are dropped and the remaining weights rescaled, so every model is judged on the same evidence. Specs and prices come from public model listings and the labs’ own API pages; capability scores come from independent benchmark runs. Data updated Oct 4, 2026.
