GLM-5-Turbo vs Apertus 70B
GLM-5-Turbo comes out ahead, 38 to 33 on our weighted score, though Apertus 70B is 36% cheaper per token.
- Our pick
Z.ai (Zhipu)GLM-5-Turbo
38/100- ECI—
- Price$1.20 / $4.00
- Context200K
Swiss AI
Apertus 70B
33/100- ECI—
- Price$0.82 / $2.42
- Context66K
Add a model
Make it a three-way comparison.
GLM-5-Turbo is our pick
GLM-5-Turbo is the better all-round choice, scoring 38/100 against Apertus 70B (33). It leads on inputs & features and context window. Apertus 70B wins on price. 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 priceApertus 70BApertus 70B $1.22 · GLM-5-Turbo $1.90 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
- Longest contextGLM-5-TurboGLM-5-Turbo 200,000 · Apertus 70B 65,536 tokens
- Widest inputsSame inputsGLM-5-Turbo: Text · Apertus 70B: Text
- Self-hostingApertus 70BPublishes downloadable weights (Apache-2.0)
| Measure | Weight | GLM-5-Turbo | Apertus 70B |
|---|---|---|---|
| Price | 50% | 37 | 46 |
| Inputs & features | 30% | 45 | 25 |
| Context window | 20% | 32 | 12 |
| Overall | 100% | 38/100 | 33/100 |
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 | GLM-5-TurboZ.ai (Zhipu) | Apertus 70BSwiss AI |
|---|---|---|
| Capability | ||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | — | — |
| ECI rank | — | — |
| Price per million tokens | ||
| Input | $1.20 | $0.82 (best) |
| Output | $4.00 | $2.42 (best) |
| Cached input | $0.24 | — |
| Blended (3:1) | $1.90 | $1.22 (best) |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | Same rate |
| Price source | Official Z.AI API | Median of 3 providers |
| Limits | ||
| Context window | 200,000 tokens (best) | 65,536 tokens |
| Max output | 131,072 tokens (best) | 8,192 tokens |
| Inputs and features | ||
| Text | Yes | Yes |
| Images | No | No |
| PDFs | No | No |
| Audio | No | No |
| Video | No | No |
| Reasoning | Yes | No |
| Tool calling | Yes | Yes |
| Structured output | Yes | No |
| Availability | ||
| Weights | Proprietary | OpenApache-2.0 |
| API model ID | glm-5-turbo | — |
| API providers | 17 (best) | 3 |
| Released | Mar 16, 2026 | Sep 2, 2025 |
| Knowledge cutoff | — | Sep 2025 |
What would a month cost?
Enter your expected volume in millions of tokens. List prices only; caching and batch discounts would lower these.
- GLM-5-Turbo$20.00
- Apertus 70B$13.04
Which should you choose?
Which is better: GLM-5-Turbo or Apertus 70B?
GLM-5-Turbo is the better all-round choice, scoring 38/100 against Apertus 70B (33). It leads on inputs & features and context window. Apertus 70B wins on price. 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, GLM-5-Turbo or Apertus 70B?
Apertus 70B is cheaper at $0.82 input / $2.42 output per million tokens (median across 3 API providers). GLM-5-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 $1.22 per million tokens for Apertus 70B versus $1.90 for GLM-5-Turbo (1.6× as much).
Which scores higher on benchmarks?
There is no independent benchmark that covers both models yet. GLM-5-Turbo has not been scored yet and Apertus 70B has not been scored yet.
Which is better for coding?
There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for GLM-5-Turbo and Apertus 70B yet, so there is no like-for-like coding score. Test both on a sample of your own tasks. Both support tool calling for agent workflows.
Which has the bigger context window?
GLM-5-Turbo has the largest context window at 200,000 tokens, against 65,536 for Apertus 70B. Maximum output per response: GLM-5-Turbo up to 131,072, Apertus 70B up to 8,192 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
GLM-5-Turbo accepts text; Apertus 70B accepts text. They handle the same number of input types.
Are any of these open source?
Apertus 70B publishes its weights (Apache-2.0) and can be self-hosted; GLM-5-Turbo is proprietary.
Which is newer?
GLM-5-Turbo is the newest, released Mar 16, 2026. Apertus 70B came out Sep 2, 2025. Knowledge cutoff: Apertus 70B Sep 2025.
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.
Related comparisons
- Add Gemini Robotics-ER 1.6 PreviewThree-way comparison
- GLM-5-Turbo vs Gemini Robotics-ER 1.6 PreviewGoogle
- GLM-5-Turbo vs DeepSeek V4 ProDeepSeek
- GLM-5-Turbo vs Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning)xAI
- GLM-5-Turbo vs Seed 2.1 ProByteDance Seed
- Apertus 70B vs Qwen3 VL 235B A22B ThinkingAlibaba (Qwen)
- Apertus 70B vs GLM-4.6Z.ai (Zhipu)
