Agentic
Not comparable- Claude 4 Sonnet
- Not measured
- GLM-5.1
- 65.4
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 2 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Model comparison
Claude 4 Sonnet vs GLM-5.1
Updated August 7, 2026. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. They are not guarantees for a specific workload.
GLM-5.1 has the higher public score, 66.9 versus 41.85, and the 90% score intervals do not overlap.
1 results are shared. Category rows based on different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.
Which one for your work
Recommendations appear only when a shared evidence basis or an explicit operating constraint supports the call. Secondary and unsupported use cases stay disclosed below the initial list.
Long documents
Prompts that approach the documented context limit
GLM-5.1
GLM-5.1 has the larger documented context window.
Confidence: documented
Chat turn cost
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
GLM-5.1
GLM-5.1 has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Confidence: listed-rates
Show secondary and unsupported calls
Repository review cost
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
GLM-5.1
GLM-5.1 has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Confidence: listed-rates
Coding work
Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks
Not enough matched evidence
No shared weighted benchmark basis supports a winner.
Confidence: limited
Agentic work
Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion
Not enough matched evidence
No shared weighted benchmark basis supports a winner.
Confidence: limited
Cache-heavy agent loop cost
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
Not enough matched evidence
The page does not recommend a cost winner because at least one model cannot fit the stated workload in one request. Claude 4 Sonnet does not fit this workload in one request. GLM-5.1 does not fit this workload in one request. Claude 4 Sonnet has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate. GLM-5.1 has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.
Confidence: rate-fallback
What is actually comparable
Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results present for only one model describe coverage, not superiority.
2 Claude 4 Sonnet only
1 Shared
19 GLM-5.1 only
- Shared results
- 1
- Claude 4 Sonnet only
- 2
- GLM-5.1 only
- 19
- Like-for-like categories
- 0 / 8
Category results, on a stated basis
Each row states whether both averages use the same weighted benchmark set. Directional and not-comparable rows remain visible, but they never receive a winner in this template.
Coding
Not comparable- Claude 4 Sonnet
- 72.7
- GLM-5.1
- 61.3
- Weighted basis
- 1 vs 2 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Reasoning
Not comparable- Claude 4 Sonnet
- Not measured
- GLM-5.1
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Knowledge
Not comparable- Claude 4 Sonnet
- Not measured
- GLM-5.1
- 52.3
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 1 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Math
Not comparable- Claude 4 Sonnet
- Not measured
- GLM-5.1
- 62.0
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 4 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multilingual
Not comparable- Claude 4 Sonnet
- Not measured
- GLM-5.1
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multimodal
Not comparable- Claude 4 Sonnet
- Not measured
- GLM-5.1
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Instruction following
Not comparable- Claude 4 Sonnet
- Not measured
- GLM-5.1
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
| Category | Claude 4 Sonnet | GLM-5.1 | Weighted basis | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agentic | Not measured | 65.4 | Not comparable0 vs 2 rows | Not comparable |
| Coding | 72.7 | 61.3 | Not comparable1 vs 2 rows | Not comparable |
| Reasoning | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Knowledge | Not measured | 52.3 | Not comparable0 vs 1 rows | Not comparable |
| Math | Not measured | 62.0 | Not comparable0 vs 4 rows | Not comparable |
| Multilingual | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Multimodal | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Instruction following | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
Shape of the matched evidence
Only shared public evidence is shown. Sparse evidence stays a ruled list rather than being closed into a radar shape.
A shared-evidence shape is not available.
BenchLM does not draw a radar or infer missing axes when the matched evidence is too sparse.
What each workload costs
Three fixed token mixes turn per-token rates into comparable decisions. Each scenario states context fit and whether cached input had to fall back to the published list-input rate.
Chat turn
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
- Claude 4 Sonnet
- $0.0105
- Fits in one request
- GLM-5.1
- $0.0036
- Fits in one request
GLM-5.1 has the lower modeled cost
Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Repository review
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
- Claude 4 Sonnet
- $0.195
- Fits in one request
- GLM-5.1
- $0.0832
- Fits in one request
GLM-5.1 has the lower modeled cost
Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Cache-heavy agent loop
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
- Claude 4 Sonnet
- $0.81
- Does not fit in one request
- Cached input priced at the published list-input rate
- GLM-5.1
- $0.352
- Does not fit in one request
- Cached input priced at the published list-input rate
Claude 4 Sonnet does not fit this workload in one request. GLM-5.1 does not fit this workload in one request. Claude 4 Sonnet has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate. GLM-5.1 has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.
Specification differences
Sourced differences are shown directly. Missing facts stay explicit instead of being inferred from a model name or family.
SpecificationClaude 4 SonnetGLM-5.1
Context window
Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.
Claude 4 Sonnet
200K
GLM-5.1
203K
API model ID
Claude 4 Sonnet
Not sourced
GLM-5.1
Not sourced
Cached-input rate
A missing cached-input rate falls back to the listed input rate only in the stated workload estimate.
Claude 4 Sonnet
Not published
GLM-5.1
Not published
Documented inputs
Claude 4 Sonnet
Not sourced
GLM-5.1
Not sourced
Documented outputs
Claude 4 Sonnet
Not sourced
GLM-5.1
Not sourced
Provider availability
Claude 4 Sonnet
Not sourced
GLM-5.1
Not sourced
Reasoning profile
Claude 4 Sonnet
Non-Reasoning
GLM-5.1
Reasoning
Weight access
Claude 4 Sonnet
Proprietary
GLM-5.1
Open Weight
License
Claude 4 Sonnet
Proprietary
GLM-5.1
Open Weight
Release date
Claude 4 Sonnet
2025-05-01
GLM-5.1
2026-04-07
If you already use one of these models
- Deployment change
- The models list different providers, so authentication, endpoint behavior, limits, and feature support may change.
- Quality signal
- GLM-5.1 has the higher public score, 66.9 versus 41.85, and the 90% score intervals do not overlap.
- Workload cost
- Repository review: $0.195 vs $0.0832. Cache-heavy agent loop: $0.81 vs $0.352.
- Context tradeoff
- GLM-5.1 has the larger documented window (203K).
Run the same representative tasks against both endpoints before changing production traffic.
Self-host vs API cost
Estimates at 50,000 req/day · 1000 tokens/req average.
Claude 4 Sonnet
API / mo$13,500
Self-host / moNot listed
Break-even—
Proprietary model — self-hosting not applicable.
GLM-5.1
API / mo$4,350
Self-host / mo$18,221
Break-even264M/day
Benchmark evidence
The full public result ledger is available for audit without forcing a wide desktop table onto a phone.
Browse raw public benchmark evidence22 rows
Agentic
Gert Labs
Shared sourceClaude 4 Sonnet39.66%GLM-5.160.11%GLM-5.1 leads this result
JobBench
Claude 4 Sonnet18.4%SourceGLM-5.1—Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Claude 4 Sonnet—GLM-5.163.5%SourceNot directly comparable
BrowseComp
Claude 4 Sonnet—GLM-5.168%SourceNot directly comparable
τ³-bench results
Claude 4 Sonnet—GLM-5.170.6%SourceNot directly comparable
MCP Atlas
Claude 4 Sonnet—GLM-5.171.8%SourceNot directly comparable
CyberGym
Claude 4 Sonnet—GLM-5.168.7%SourceNot directly comparable
Claw-Eval
Claude 4 Sonnet—GLM-5.162.3%SourceNot directly comparable
ResearchClawBench
Claude 4 Sonnet—GLM-5.118.2%SourceNot directly comparable
Coding
SWE-bench Verified
Claude 4 Sonnet72.7%SourceGLM-5.1—Not directly comparable
SWE-bench Pro
Claude 4 Sonnet—GLM-5.158.4%SourceNot directly comparable
NL2Repo
Claude 4 Sonnet—GLM-5.142.7%SourceNot directly comparable
SWE-Rebench
Claude 4 Sonnet—GLM-5.162.7%SourceNot directly comparable
Vibe Code Bench
Claude 4 Sonnet—GLM-5.131.46%SourceNot directly comparable
Knowledge
Math
AIME26
Claude 4 Sonnet—GLM-5.195.3%SourceNot directly comparable
HMMT Nov 2025
Claude 4 Sonnet—GLM-5.194.0%SourceNot directly comparable
HMMT Feb 2026
Claude 4 Sonnet—GLM-5.182.6%SourceNot directly comparable
MMAnswerBench
Claude 4 Sonnet—GLM-5.183.8%SourceNot directly comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)
Claude 4 Sonnet—GLM-5.133.448%SourceNot directly comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)
Claude 4 Sonnet—GLM-5.112.500%SourceNot directly comparable
Frequently asked questions
Which is better, Claude 4 Sonnet or GLM-5.1?
GLM-5.1 has the higher public score, 66.9 versus 41.85, and the 90% score intervals do not overlap. That is the clearest overall quality signal in the current public data.
Which is better for coding, Claude 4 Sonnet or GLM-5.1?
The published evidence does not provide a shared weighted coding basis for both models, so BenchLM does not name a coding winner.
Which is better for agentic tasks, Claude 4 Sonnet or GLM-5.1?
The published evidence does not provide a shared weighted agentic tasks basis for both models, so BenchLM does not name a agentic tasks winner.
Which costs less, Claude 4 Sonnet or GLM-5.1?
For the stated presets, chat costs $0.0105 on Claude 4 Sonnet and $0.0036 on GLM-5.1; repository review costs $0.195 and $0.0832; the cache-heavy agent loop costs $0.81 and $0.352. Claude 4 Sonnet does not fit this workload in one request. GLM-5.1 does not fit this workload in one request. Claude 4 Sonnet has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate. GLM-5.1 has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.
Which has the larger context window, Claude 4 Sonnet or GLM-5.1?
GLM-5.1 has the larger documented context window: 203K, compared with 200K.
Related comparisons
Last updated August 7, 2026
Watch Claude 4 Sonnet vs GLM-5.1
One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.
Read a sample issueJoin 2,000+ readers.