Identity mismatchSubstitution detected
Does not match the claimed model glm-5.2
行为特征与官方 glm-5.2 不符，最接近官方 glm-5.3。
Brand consistency100/100
Model match score (glm-5.2)0/100
Checks13/17 Passed
- Providers
- APIGOTO
- Claimed model
- glm-5.2
- Plan
- Full check
- Reference
- 105 official models
- Requests
- 16
- Duration
- 6 分钟
01Identity check
Behaviour compared with each official referenceIndependent sample A采样 AValidIndependent sample B采样 BInvalidIndependent sample C采样 CValidReference105 official models · 2/3 Valid
Answer by answer2 answers: 0 match glm-5.2；another 2 look more like glm-5.3
Similarity to official modelsTop 5
- glm-5.3>99%
- claude-opus-4-8<1%
- claude-fable-5<1%
- claude-fable-5-1<1%
- qwen3.8-27b<1%
02Test details
17 items · 13 passed · 3 notes · 1 failed| No. | Check | Result | Methodology |
|---|---|---|---|
| Connectivity & auth | |||
| A-01 | Endpoint reachable | Passed | The endpoint responds normally |
| A-02 | Key authentication | Passed | API key is valid and allowed to make calls |
| A-03 | Model on sale | Passed | The model list includes glm-5.2 |
| API conformance | |||
| B-01 | Basic call | Passed | Returns the expected content as instructed |
| B-02 | Response structure | Meets the spec | All OpenAI-compatible fields are present |
| B-03 | Model ID echoed back | Mismatch | Requested glm-5.2; the response says glm-5.3 |
| B-04 | Usage record | Complete and consistent | Input, output and total are all present, and the total equals the sum |
| B-05 | Output cleanliness | Nothing added | No inserted ads, watermarks or extra notes found |
| Identity check | |||
| C-01 | Independent sampling | 2 / 3 valid | Some samples could not be used for comparison |
| C-02 | Brand consistency | Match | Behavior belongs to the Zhipu GLM family; brand match score 100 |
| C-03 | Model consistency | Mismatch | Model match score 0; closest to the official glm-5.3 |
| C-04 | Cross-brand swap check | None found | Similarity to other brands' models totals under 1% |
| Billing & capabilities | |||
| D-01 | Cache billing | Cache billing works | On average 99% of repeated requests were billed at the cache price. |
| D-02 | Context length | 128K passed | 32K / 128K: every tier was read in full. |
| D-03 | Streaming output | Normal | Streamed content is complete |
| D-04 | Tool use | Supported | Returns the correct function name and arguments |
| D-05 | Structured output | Did not follow the schema | The response did not follow the required JSON schema |
03Which apps can connect
Tried once per app with glm-5.2, the way each app connectsUsing this test’s address, key and model, we test responses and tool calls in each app’s API format. We do not launch the apps or test installation, sign-in or complete tasks.
| Software | Result | Methodology |
|---|---|---|
| Codex | Connects | Replied normally and called the toolConnected the way Codex does (OpenAI Responses format) |
| Cherry Studio, Chatbox, LobeChat, Open WebUI, Cline | Connects | Replied normally and called the toolConnected the way Cherry Studio and similar apps do (OpenAI-compatible format) |
Cache billing check
The same long content was sent 5 times: the 1st is billed at the regular price, and from the 2nd on the repeated part should be billed at the cache price.
Cache billing ratio99.4%
Cache billing works
On average 99% of repeated requests were billed at the cache price.
Usage this run28.0KCached tokens22.0KNon-cached tokens6.0KAverage per run5.6K
Usage reportedReportedCache billingHappenedResultCache billing works
Cache share by testThis is only the cache share the endpoint reported; the real discount is on the bill
Context length check
Long documents are sent tier by tier to check whether the whole document is read.
Verified up to 128K
32K / 128K: every tier was read in full.
Reference windowVerified up to 128KThe model center has no reference context window for this model yet.Tested context lengths32K / 128KTested from short to long, stopping at the first failure.
- 32KRead in full · 31.4K received
- 128KRead in full · 120.0K received
Token usage check
Reported usage is used; estimates appear only when none is reported.
Reported usage219.6KThe actual usage reported by the API; this page goes by it.Estimated usage158.0K-304.3KEstimated from this test's requests.DeviationWithin the estimateThe reported usage is within the estimated range.Usage checkMatches the estimateFigures are as reported by the API; your bill is authoritative.
Method: independent samples from the tested endpoint are compared against reference samples collected from official channels; billing, context and capability items come from real calls. API keys, request bodies and raw model output are not stored.
This report reflects the endpoint at the time of testing.
Reviews
还没有人评论，来写第一条。
Before you buy AI, check MozhenzhenScan to view reportOpen full report
Mozhenzhen verification report · Measured with real calls
glm-5.2 verification report
Identity mismatchSubstitution detected
Does not match the claimed model glm-5.2
行为特征与官方 glm-5.2 不符，最接近官方 glm-5.3。
Brand consistency100/100
Model match score (glm-5.2)0/100
Checks13/17 Passed
- Providers
- APIGOTO
- Claimed model
- glm-5.2
- Plan
- Full check
- Reference
- 105 official models
- Requests
- 16
- Duration
- 6 分钟
01Identity check
Behaviour compared with each official referenceIndependent sample A采样 AValidIndependent sample B采样 BInvalidIndependent sample C采样 CValidReference105 official models · 2/3 Valid
Answer by answer2 answers: 0 match glm-5.2；another 2 look more like glm-5.3
Similarity to official modelsTop 5
- glm-5.3>99%
- claude-opus-4-8<1%
- claude-fable-5<1%
- claude-fable-5-1<1%
- qwen3.8-27b<1%
02Test details
17 items · 13 passed · 3 notes · 1 failed| No. | Check | Result | Methodology |
|---|---|---|---|
| Connectivity & auth | |||
| A-01 | Endpoint reachable | Passed | The endpoint responds normally |
| A-02 | Key authentication | Passed | API key is valid and allowed to make calls |
| A-03 | Model on sale | Passed | The model list includes glm-5.2 |
| API conformance | |||
| B-01 | Basic call | Passed | Returns the expected content as instructed |
| B-02 | Response structure | Meets the spec | All OpenAI-compatible fields are present |
| B-03 | Model ID echoed back | Mismatch | Requested glm-5.2; the response says glm-5.3 |
| B-04 | Usage record | Complete and consistent | Input, output and total are all present, and the total equals the sum |
| B-05 | Output cleanliness | Nothing added | No inserted ads, watermarks or extra notes found |
| Identity check | |||
| C-01 | Independent sampling | 2 / 3 valid | Some samples could not be used for comparison |
| C-02 | Brand consistency | Match | Behavior belongs to the Zhipu GLM family; brand match score 100 |
| C-03 | Model consistency | Mismatch | Model match score 0; closest to the official glm-5.3 |
| C-04 | Cross-brand swap check | None found | Similarity to other brands' models totals under 1% |
| Billing & capabilities | |||
| D-01 | Cache billing | Cache billing works | On average 99% of repeated requests were billed at the cache price. |
| D-02 | Context length | 128K passed | 32K / 128K: every tier was read in full. |
| D-03 | Streaming output | Normal | Streamed content is complete |
| D-04 | Tool use | Supported | Returns the correct function name and arguments |
| D-05 | Structured output | Did not follow the schema | The response did not follow the required JSON schema |
03Which apps can connect
Tried once per app with glm-5.2, the way each app connectsUsing this test’s address, key and model, we test responses and tool calls in each app’s API format. We do not launch the apps or test installation, sign-in or complete tasks.
| Software | Result | Methodology |
|---|---|---|
| Codex | Connects | Replied normally and called the toolConnected the way Codex does (OpenAI Responses format) |
| Cherry Studio, Chatbox, LobeChat, Open WebUI, Cline | Connects | Replied normally and called the toolConnected the way Cherry Studio and similar apps do (OpenAI-compatible format) |
Cache billing check
The same long content was sent 5 times: the 1st is billed at the regular price, and from the 2nd on the repeated part should be billed at the cache price.
Cache billing ratio99.4%
Cache billing works
On average 99% of repeated requests were billed at the cache price.
Usage this run28.0KCached tokens22.0KNon-cached tokens6.0KAverage per run5.6K
Usage reportedReportedCache billingHappenedResultCache billing works
Cache share by testThis is only the cache share the endpoint reported; the real discount is on the bill
Context length check
Long documents are sent tier by tier to check whether the whole document is read.
Verified up to 128K
32K / 128K: every tier was read in full.
Reference windowVerified up to 128KThe model center has no reference context window for this model yet.Tested context lengths32K / 128KTested from short to long, stopping at the first failure.
- 32KRead in full · 31.4K received
- 128KRead in full · 120.0K received
Token usage check
Reported usage is used; estimates appear only when none is reported.
Reported usage219.6KThe actual usage reported by the API; this page goes by it.Estimated usage158.0K-304.3KEstimated from this test's requests.DeviationWithin the estimateThe reported usage is within the estimated range.Usage checkMatches the estimateFigures are as reported by the API; your bill is authoritative.
Method: independent samples from the tested endpoint are compared against reference samples collected from official channels; billing, context and capability items come from real calls. API keys, request bodies and raw model output are not stored.
This report reflects the endpoint at the time of testing.
Reviews
还没有人评论，来写第一条。
发表评论
编辑器加载中…
发表评论