GLM-5 vs Mercury Edit 2
Too close to call on our weighted score (GLM-5 37, Mercury Edit 2 35). The right pick depends on what you value most.
Z.ai (Zhipu)GLM-5
37/100- ECI145.8
- Price$1.00 / $3.20
- Context205K
InceptionMercury Edit 2
35/100- ECI—
- Price$0.25 / $0.75
- Context32K
Add a model
Make it a three-way comparison.
Too close to call
It is close. Our weighted score puts them within 2 points (GLM-5 37/100, Mercury Edit 2 35/100), so choose by what matters most for your work: Mercury Edit 2 on price and GLM-5 for long inputs. 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 priceMercury Edit 2Mercury Edit 2 $0.375 · GLM-5 $1.55 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
- Longest contextGLM-5GLM-5 204,800 · Mercury Edit 2 32,000 tokens
- Widest inputsSame inputsGLM-5: Text · Mercury Edit 2: Text
- Self-hostingGLM-5Publishes downloadable weights
| Measure | Weight | GLM-5 | Mercury Edit 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Price | 50% | 41 | 70 |
| Inputs & features | 30% | 35 | 0 |
| Context window | 20% | 32 | 0 |
| Overall | 100% | 37/100 | 35/100 |
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-5Z.ai (Zhipu) | Mercury Edit 2Inception |
|---|---|---|
| Capability | ||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | 145.8 | — |
| ECI rank | #74 of 148 | — |
| GPQA DiamondGraduate-level science questions | 87.8% | — |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025Competition mathematics | 80.0% | — |
| SWE-bench VerifiedFixing real GitHub issues | 72.1% | — |
| Price per million tokens | ||
| Input | $1.00 | $0.25 (best) |
| Output | $3.20 | $0.75 (best) |
| Cached input | $0.20 | $0.025 (best) |
| Blended (3:1) | $1.55 | $0.375 (best) |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | Same rate |
| Price source | Official Z.AI API | Official Inception API |
| Limits | ||
| Context window | 204,800 tokens (best) | 32,000 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 | No |
| Structured output | No | No |
| Availability | ||
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |
| API model ID | glm-5 | mercury-edit-2 |
| API providers | 27 (best) | 1 |
| Released | Feb 12, 2026 | Mar 30, 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.
- GLM-5$16.40
- Mercury Edit 2$4.00
Which should you choose?
Which is better: GLM-5 or Mercury Edit 2?
It is close. Our weighted score puts them within 2 points (GLM-5 37/100, Mercury Edit 2 35/100), so choose by what matters most for your work: Mercury Edit 2 on price and GLM-5 for long inputs. 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 or Mercury Edit 2?
Mercury Edit 2 is cheaper at $0.25 input / $0.75 output per million tokens (official Inception API price). GLM-5 costs $1.00 input / $3.20 output per million tokens (official Z.AI API price). At a typical mix of three input tokens to one output token, that is $0.375 per million tokens for Mercury Edit 2 versus $1.55 for GLM-5 (4.1× as much).
Which scores higher on benchmarks?
There is no independent benchmark that covers both models yet. GLM-5 has an ECI of 145.8 and Mercury Edit 2 has not been scored yet.
Which is better for coding?
There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for Mercury Edit 2 yet, so there is no like-for-like coding score. Test both on a sample of your own tasks. Note that Mercury Edit 2 does not support tool calling, which most coding agents need.
Which has the bigger context window?
GLM-5 has the largest context window at 204,800 tokens, against 32,000 for Mercury Edit 2. Maximum output per response: GLM-5 up to 131,072, Mercury Edit 2 up to 8,192 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
GLM-5 accepts text; Mercury Edit 2 accepts text. They handle the same number of input types.
Are any of these open source?
GLM-5 publishes its weights and can be self-hosted; Mercury Edit 2 is proprietary.
Which is newer?
Mercury Edit 2 is the newest, released Mar 30, 2026. GLM-5 came out Feb 12, 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.
Related comparisons
- Add Qwen3.5 397B-A17BThree-way comparison
- GLM-5 vs Qwen3.5 397B-A17BAlibaba (Qwen) · ECI 146.7
- GLM-5 vs Kimi K2 ThinkingMoonshot AI · ECI 146.0
- GLM-5 vs GPT-5.4 miniOpenAI · ECI 148.8
- GLM-5 vs Nemotron 3 Ultra 550B A55BNVIDIA · ECI 146.2
- Mercury Edit 2 vs Trinity Large ThinkingArcee AI
- Mercury Edit 2 vs Nemotron 3 Super 120B A12BNVIDIA
