Fugu Ultra v2 vs GLM 5V Turbo: which should you choose in 2026?
Fugu Ultra v2 (by Sakana AI) and GLM 5V Turbo (by Z.AI) are compared below. Here is how they stack up on benchmarks, price, and capabilities, and which one to pick in 2026.
There are not enough shared, protocol-compatible benchmark results to declare a performance leader.
At least one model uses context-dependent token-pricing tiers, so the published base rates do not support an unconditional blended price comparison.
Fugu Ultra v2 has the larger context window (1,000,000 tokens vs 202,752 tokens).
Choose Fugu Ultra v2 if…
- • you work with longer documents, transcripts, or codebases
Choose GLM 5V Turbo if…
- • your own prompt tests favor its output; shared comparable evidence does not identify a unique advantage
The benchmark count includes only results measured with a matching benchmark version and protocol. Arena scores are shown separately. Missing, preliminary, and incompatible data is not treated as a controlled win. Published point-score comparisons are labeled separately when protocol details are incomplete. For text-output models, the verdict also compares token pricing and context windows.
Performance benchmarks
Every value links to its source. A dash means that no reviewed result is available for that exact model and protocol.
| Benchmark | Fugu Ultra v2 | GLM 5V Turbo |
|---|---|---|
A 657-task benchmark of multi-step work across simulated SaaS applications in six business domains. The Artificial Analysis protocol reports a guardrail-aware score and is distinct from both the public Zapier split and the unrelated dynamic AutoBench framework. Guardrail-aware score | — | — |
A benchmark of difficult, verifiable information-seeking questions designed to measure an agent's ability to locate hard-to-find facts through web browsing. Accuracy | — | — |
A verified computer-use benchmark in which multimodal agents operate desktop applications and are graded from the resulting environment state. Mean task reward | — | — |
A human-validated subset of real GitHub issues used to measure whether a coding agent can produce repository patches that resolve the associated tests. Resolved | — | — |
Version 2.1 of the benchmark for completing realistic tasks in terminal environments. Harness, resource limits, and attempt count are part of the protocol. Mean task success | — | — |
A dynamic LLM evaluation framework in which models generate questions, answer them, and participate in reciprocal peer assessment. AutoBench is distinct from Zapier's AutomationBench. Weighted peer-assessment score | — | — |
The highest-quality subset of Graduate-Level Google-Proof Q&A, designed to test expert-level scientific reasoning in biology, physics, and chemistry. Accuracy | — | — |
A 2,500-question expert-level benchmark spanning dozens of academic fields. Tool-assisted and no-tools results are separate protocols and must not be merged. Accuracy | — | — |
| Arena preference scores | ||
Human preference score | — | 1433 ±7 |
Human preference score for code and web development | — | 1400 ±14 |
Benchmark sources
Reviewed evidence last updated 2026-08-09. Arena data last refreshed Sep 10, 2026.
Pricing, capabilities, and model facts
| Feature | Fugu Ultra v2 | GLM 5V Turbo |
|---|---|---|
| Context & model facts | ||
| Developer | Sakana AI | Z.AI |
| API provider | Sakana | Z.ai |
| Input context | 1,000,000 tokens | 202,752 tokens |
| Maximum output | 128,000 tokens | 131,072 tokens |
| Released | — | — |
| Added to Writingmate | Sep 11, 2026 | Apr 1, 2026 |
| License | Not available | Not available |
| Knowledge cutoff | 2026-08-28 | — |
| Capabilities | ||
| Inputs | Text, Image, File | Image, Text, Video |
| Outputs | Text | Text |
| Provider endpoint accepts tool parameters | Yes | Yes |
| Reasoning | Yes | Yes |
| Vision | Yes | Yes |
| Image Generation | No | No |
| Video Generation | No | No |
| API pricing | ||
| Base input (per 1M tokens) | $5.00 | $1.20 |
| Base output (per 1M tokens) | $30.00 | $4.00 |
| Higher-context pricing tiers |
| Base rate only |
| Price-comparison caveat | At least one model changes token rates above a prompt-token threshold. Base rates are shown, but an unconditional blended price ratio would not be like-for-like. | |
| API performance | ||
| p95 latency | Not measured | Not measured |
| Output throughput | Not measured | Not measured |
| Writingmate shows API performance only when both models have enough observations from the same measurement window, prompt profile, and provider. Third-party latency values are not copied into this table. | ||
Data sources
- Writingmate model catalog (pricing, limits, and availability)
Catalog data last updated Sep 11, 2026.
Why Pay for Multiple Subscriptions?
Comparing Fugu Ultra v2 from Sakana AI with GLM 5V Turbo from Z.AI? Instead of managing separate API keys and subscriptions, get both with Writingmate.
| Plan | Price | Fugu Ultra v2 | GLM 5V Turbo | AI Images | AI Video |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Writingmate Pro Most popular | $20/mo | Ultimate required | Included | Nano Banana Pro, FLUX.2, DALL-E & more | Sora 2, VEO 3.1 |
Writingmate Ultimate Power users | $60/mo | Included | Included | Nano Banana Pro, FLUX.2, DALL-E & more | Sora 2, VEO 3.1 |
Fugu Ultra v2 vs GLM 5V Turbo FAQ
Which is better, Fugu Ultra v2 or GLM 5V Turbo?
There are not enough shared, protocol-compatible benchmark results to declare a performance leader. At least one model uses context-dependent token-pricing tiers, so the published base rates do not support an unconditional blended price comparison. Fugu Ultra v2 has the larger context window (1,000,000 tokens vs 202,752 tokens).
Which model is cheaper to use through an API?
At least one model uses context-dependent token-pricing tiers, so the published base rates do not support an unconditional blended price comparison.
Which model supports more context?
Fugu Ultra v2 has the larger context window (1,000,000 tokens vs 202,752 tokens).
Can I switch between Fugu Ultra v2 and GLM 5V Turbo?
Yes. Use the model selector on this page to open any current Writingmate model comparison. You can also run the same prompt with both models in Writingmate.
Related comparisons
More Fugu Ultra v2 comparisons
Muse Spark 1.3 Contributor
Meta
Muse Spark 1.3 Contributor is the cost-efficient contributor tier of Meta’s multimodal reasoning model for experimentation, learning, and early-stage agentic, multi-agent, and coding workflows.
Muse Spark 1.3
Meta
Muse Spark 1.3 is a multimodal reasoning model from Meta for long-running agentic, multi-agent, and coding workflows.
Gemini 3.8 Flash
Gemini 3.8 Flash is Google's most intelligent Flash model with significant gains from 3.7 Flash across software engineering, agentic tasks, and multi-step reasoning.
Muse Spark 1.2 Contributor
Meta
Muse Spark 1.2 contributor tier is a reasoning model from Meta designed for developers who want to start building at an even lower cost.
Gemini 3.7 Flash
Gemini 3.7 Flash is a multimodal model from Google for fast agentic workflows, coding, and complex multi-step reasoning.
Grok 4.6
xAI
Grok 4.6 is SpaceXAI's smartest model with frontier performance on coding, knowledge work, and STEM.
More GLM 5V Turbo comparisons
Qwen3.8 Max (0902)
Qwen
Qwen3.8 Max 0902 is an updated snapshot of Qwen3.8 Max from Alibaba's Qwen team.
Muse Spark 1.3 Contributor
Meta
Muse Spark 1.3 Contributor is the cost-efficient contributor tier of Meta’s multimodal reasoning model for experimentation, learning, and early-stage agentic, multi-agent, and coding workflows.
Muse Spark 1.3
Meta
Muse Spark 1.3 is a multimodal reasoning model from Meta for long-running agentic, multi-agent, and coding workflows.
Gemini 3.8 Flash
Gemini 3.8 Flash is Google's most intelligent Flash model with significant gains from 3.7 Flash across software engineering, agentic tasks, and multi-step reasoning.
Qwen3.8 Flash
Qwen
Qwen3.8 Flash is a multimodal reasoning model from Alibaba.
Muse Spark 1.2 Contributor
Meta
Muse Spark 1.2 contributor tier is a reasoning model from Meta designed for developers who want to start building at an even lower cost.