6 ms·

Z.ai documents integrations with nearly all the popular CLI-based agents: https://docs.z.ai/devpack/tool/others https://docs.z.ai/devpack/tool/others If you're

by m3h 3mo ago

Z.ai documents integrations with nearly all the popular CLI-based agents: https://docs.z.ai/devpack/tool/others https://docs.z.ai/devpack/tool/others If you're already used to your TUI coding agent, you don't need the desktop agent. Although it is nice that it is there for folks who prefer the Codex App/Claude App UI approach.

m3h 3mo ago
Also, kudos to the Z.ai team for adding Linux support from day one.
cpdomina 3mo ago
[dead]
InsideOutSanta 3mo ago
Yeah, I use GLM 5.2 in OpenCode, running in a Docker container with CodeNomad as the web-based GUI. It works perfectly; I can access it from anywhere, and it runs all models (except for Anthropic's subscriptions).
- owentbrown 3mo ago
  From your experience, is it comparable to Claude Code with Opus 4.8? How does it feel? How do the two differ?
  - InsideOutSanta 3mo ago
    It's comparable, but not the same. For some tasks, it's better. Opus refuses tasks for me pretty regularly. GLM 5.2 has never refused a task. So for anything security-related or that touches on topics that trigger Opus's safety guardrails, I use GLM 5.2. OTOH, for anything related to UI design, I use Opus 4.8. It's much better at taking relatively vague descriptions of user interfaces and a mockup of a related UI and combining them into an immaculate design. For anything else, I tend to run tasks in Opus and then have GLM review them and write a Markdown file with anything it finds. Then I have Opus review the markdown file and fix the issues it agrees with. The reason I usually go with Opus 4.8 first is mainly that it's faster. Opus 4.8 is, on average, about twice as fast as GLM 5.2 running on z'ai's infrastructure for the same task. There's a large variance (sometimes GLM 5.2 is pretty fast and Opus 4.8 is pretty slow), but on average it's a very noticeable difference. When I run into Anthropic's Quota, I switch to GLM 5.2 rather than Sonnet. I don't think there's much reason to ever use Sonnet for anything if you can use GLM 5.2 instead. This is all pretty subjective, of course. On average, I think Opus 4.8 is still a better, more reliable, and faster model, but if it went away tomorrow and I only had GLM 5.2, I wouldn't be too sad about it; I'd get things done with GLM 5.2 just fine.
    - sparkling 3mo ago
      Thank you, this is the type of hands-on experience report i was looking for.
    - drschwabe 3mo ago
      Are you micromanaging your GLM costs? It seems the best bang for buck strategy right now is a Opencode Go subscription to get the subsidized rate and then switch to Openrouter's model above and beyond that + make use of a dual model strategy by having GLM 5.2 do planning and Deepseek V4 Flash for implementation.
      - InsideOutSanta 3mo ago
        No. I got the yearly highest-end GLM subscription when it was available for a few hundred bucks. I haven't run into quota limits even once.
        drschwabe 3mo ago
        Nice, lucky! The Opencode Go GLM 5.2 quota gets used up so fast. It's an expensive model. And while impressive for being open weight, it seems slower than Opus and GPT. So I typically only use it after exhausting quotas of discounted GPT5.5 or Opus 4.6^ paid plans.
        InsideOutSanta 3mo ago
        Yeah, it's definitely slower.
    - andy99 3mo ago
      Do you guys use it through open router? Do you have any concerns about how the data you send is being intercepted? Not that I trust Anthropic but it’s widely agreed that it’s kosher to use them for commercial work, I can’t see comfortably sending any customer data to openrouter. Edit- I see down-thread you use z.ai directly. Same concern, aren’t you worried about using it for professional stuff.
  - port11 3mo ago
    From my experience (~10M tokens on each): Opus remains better at more or less everything, and seems to hold its own better in large context work. It’s also more thorough. And usually can fix the weirdest of bugs, GLM is a bit hit and miss. That said, GLM is worlds cheaper and a great little planner if you do a couple of rounds covering edge cases or things it might have forgotten. I can’t cache it via OpenCode Go, so I plan with GLM after gathering context cheaply, and then pass the plan to Gwen. That pairs well and shows the beauty of a multi-provider harness. I should also add that I run GLM in Pi with a lot of cool little things such as hashline edits, some plugins for general smartness, etc. Opus runs in CC with the native tooling (except for Semble and Serena).
- doppp 3mo ago
  [dead]
Havoc 3mo ago
I believe the incentive here is more tokens. I recall limits being more generous with their inhouse harness

by m3h 3mo ago

m3h 3mo ago

Also, kudos to the Z.ai team for adding Linux support from day one.

cpdomina 3mo ago

[dead]

InsideOutSanta 3mo ago

Yeah, I use GLM 5.2 in OpenCode, running in a Docker container with CodeNomad as the web-based GUI. It works perfectly; I can access it from anywhere, and it runs all models (except for Anthropic's subscriptions).

owentbrown 3mo ago
From your experience, is it comparable to Claude Code with Opus 4.8? How does it feel? How do the two differ?
- InsideOutSanta 3mo ago
  It's comparable, but not the same. For some tasks, it's better. Opus refuses tasks for me pretty regularly. GLM 5.2 has never refused a task. So for anything security-related or that touches on topics that trigger Opus's safety guardrails, I use GLM 5.2. OTOH, for anything related to UI design, I use Opus 4.8. It's much better at taking relatively vague descriptions of user interfaces and a mockup of a related UI and combining them into an immaculate design. For anything else, I tend to run tasks in Opus and then have GLM review them and write a Markdown file with anything it finds. Then I have Opus review the markdown file and fix the issues it agrees with. The reason I usually go with Opus 4.8 first is mainly that it's faster. Opus 4.8 is, on average, about twice as fast as GLM 5.2 running on z'ai's infrastructure for the same task. There's a large variance (sometimes GLM 5.2 is pretty fast and Opus 4.8 is pretty slow), but on average it's a very noticeable difference. When I run into Anthropic's Quota, I switch to GLM 5.2 rather than Sonnet. I don't think there's much reason to ever use Sonnet for anything if you can use GLM 5.2 instead. This is all pretty subjective, of course. On average, I think Opus 4.8 is still a better, more reliable, and faster model, but if it went away tomorrow and I only had GLM 5.2, I wouldn't be too sad about it; I'd get things done with GLM 5.2 just fine.
  - sparkling 3mo ago
    Thank you, this is the type of hands-on experience report i was looking for.
  - drschwabe 3mo ago
    Are you micromanaging your GLM costs? It seems the best bang for buck strategy right now is a Opencode Go subscription to get the subsidized rate and then switch to Openrouter's model above and beyond that + make use of a dual model strategy by having GLM 5.2 do planning and Deepseek V4 Flash for implementation.
    - InsideOutSanta 3mo ago
      No. I got the yearly highest-end GLM subscription when it was available for a few hundred bucks. I haven't run into quota limits even once.
      - drschwabe 3mo ago
        Nice, lucky! The Opencode Go GLM 5.2 quota gets used up so fast. It's an expensive model. And while impressive for being open weight, it seems slower than Opus and GPT. So I typically only use it after exhausting quotas of discounted GPT5.5 or Opus 4.6^ paid plans.
        InsideOutSanta 3mo ago
        Yeah, it's definitely slower.
  - andy99 3mo ago
    Do you guys use it through open router? Do you have any concerns about how the data you send is being intercepted? Not that I trust Anthropic but it’s widely agreed that it’s kosher to use them for commercial work, I can’t see comfortably sending any customer data to openrouter. Edit- I see down-thread you use z.ai directly. Same concern, aren’t you worried about using it for professional stuff.
- port11 3mo ago
  From my experience (~10M tokens on each): Opus remains better at more or less everything, and seems to hold its own better in large context work. It’s also more thorough. And usually can fix the weirdest of bugs, GLM is a bit hit and miss. That said, GLM is worlds cheaper and a great little planner if you do a couple of rounds covering edge cases or things it might have forgotten. I can’t cache it via OpenCode Go, so I plan with GLM after gathering context cheaply, and then pass the plan to Gwen. That pairs well and shows the beauty of a multi-provider harness. I should also add that I run GLM in Pi with a lot of cool little things such as hashline edits, some plugins for general smartness, etc. Opus runs in CC with the native tooling (except for Semble and Serena).
doppp 3mo ago
[dead]

Havoc 3mo ago

I believe the incentive here is more tokens. I recall limits being more generous with their inhouse harness