GLM-5.2 vs Cody
GLM-5.2 (freemium, AI Score 8.7/10) vs Cody (freemium, AI Score 8.6/10). Side-by-side pricing, features, pros and cons, and which to pick.
The verdict
Side-by-side specs
| Spec | GLM-5.2 | Cody |
|---|---|---|
| Category | Coding | Coding |
| Pricing model | freemium | freemium |
| Headline pricing | Free 20M tokens on signup + open weights; paid API & coding plans (check site) | Free tier + Pro $9/mo + Enterprise custom |
| Free tier | Free chat access plus 20M free tokens on API signup, and open weights available to download and self-host under MIT. | Autocomplete, chat, and commands with usage limits |
| AI Score | 8.7/10 | 8.6/10 |
| Best for | — | — |
| Editor's pick | ✓ Yes | ✓ Yes |
| Use cases | — | — |
| Date added | 2026-06-27 | 2026-05-01 |
Pros and cons
GLM-5.2
Coding · freemium
Pros
- ✓MIT-licensed open weights — full commercial use, self-hosting, and fine-tuning with no revocable API terms
- ✓1M-token context handles whole codebases and long agent histories in one pass
- ✓Benchmark results competitive with top closed frontier models, especially on coding and agentic tasks
- ✓Genuinely free to start: chat UI, 20M signup tokens, or download the weights
- ✓Strong fit for coding agents thanks to its long-horizon, tool-use orientation
Cons
- ×At 744B parameters, self-hosting demands serious GPU hardware — out of reach for most individual developers
- ×Vendor-published benchmarks need independent verification; real-world coding performance may vary from the claims
- ×Hosted API and coding-plan pricing isn't transparently listed, so budgeting requires checking the site
- ×As a model from Zhipu AI, some enterprises face data-residency or procurement constraints around China-based providers
Cody
Coding · freemium
Pros
- ✓Best-in-class codebase context — understands your full repo, not just the open file
- ✓Multi-model support lets you pick the right LLM for each task
- ✓Works as a VS Code and JetBrains extension — no need to switch editors
- ✓Enterprise tier integrates with Sourcegraph code search across multiple repositories
Cons
- ×Context engine is most powerful on Enterprise tier — free users get limited repo-wide context
- ×Lacks the autonomous agent and multi-file editing capabilities of Cursor or Windsurf
- ×Autocomplete quality lags behind GitHub Copilot and Cursor in head-to-head comparisons
- ×Sourcegraph integration adds complexity to enterprise setup and onboarding
FAQ
Is GLM-5.2 better than Cody? ▾
GLM-5.2 scores 8.7/10 in our evaluation versus Cody at 8.6/10. GLM-5.2 edges ahead overall, but "better" depends on your use case — see the verdict block above.
Does GLM-5.2 or Cody have a free tier? ▾
Both offer free access. GLM-5.2: Free chat access plus 20M free tokens on API signup, and open weights available to download and self-host under MIT.. Cody: Autocomplete, chat, and commands with usage limits.
Should I choose GLM-5.2 or Cody in 2026? ▾
If gLM-5.2's overall approach fits you better pick GLM-5.2. If cody's overall approach fits you better pick Cody. Both are credible — neither is a wrong choice.
Related comparisons
Updated 2026-06-27. Spec data sourced from official product pages and tracked in our public directory at /tools.