Coding work
Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks
GLM-5.1
GLM-5.1 leads on the public coding lane, 51.5 to 48.5, with Supported evidence for both models, although the 90% intervals overlap.
Confidence: limited
Claude Sonnet 4.6 vs GLM-5.1
Updated September 23, 2026. Rank says GLM-5.1 is ahead. Price, access, and your workload can each overturn that. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty.
Both of these models will change. Get the price, version and retirement notices for the pair, each with its source. Follow model changes
Share or export
Decision reading
GLM-5.1 has the higher public score estimate, 57.71 versus 56.73, but the 90% score intervals overlap. Treat that as a lead, not a settled winner. 14 results are shared. Category rows resting on Estimated evidence or different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.
- Shared results
- 14
- Claude Sonnet 4.6 only
- 12
- GLM-5.1 only
- 12
- Like-for-like categories
- 2 / 8
Supported: Claude Sonnet 4.6 and GLM-5.1How the comparison works
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: documentedChat 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-ratesAgentic work
Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion
Not enough matched evidence
GLM-5.1 is scored on Estimated evidence for agentic, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like.
Confidence: limitedCache-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 Sonnet 4.6 does not fit this workload in one request. GLM-5.1 does not fit this workload in one request. Claude Sonnet 4.6 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
Which one for a specific job
Choose a job from the LLM Selector's task catalog to see the category row it rests on, under the same basis rules as the table below. A directional row stays directional; choosing a job never creates a winner.
The same task catalog as the LLM Selector. Each job names the evidence surface it rests on; nothing here adds a new score.
48.5Claude Sonnet 4.651.5GLM-5.1
Like-for-like · BenchAlign v5.6
GLM-5.1 leads the like-for-like coding row, although the 90% intervals overlap.
Coding scores combine specific tasks and setups. Match the editor, harness, and effort to your workflow.
Same basis rules as the category table below
What is actually comparable
Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results present for only one model describe coverage, not superiority.
12 Claude Sonnet 4.6 only
14 Shared
12 GLM-5.1 only
2 categories rest on Estimated evidence or different evidence sets. Those rows remain visible for coverage context but do not name a winner.
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.
Too few matched category axes support a radar. The ruled list below shows only shared benchmark results; positions use each benchmark’s normalized display scale when available.
Terminal-Bench 2.0Agentic
Normalized gap 4.4Claude Sonnet 4.6:59.1%GLM-5.1:63.5%FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Math
Normalized gap 4.2Claude Sonnet 4.6:8.300%GLM-5.1:12.500%HLEKnowledge
Normalized gap 3.3Claude Sonnet 4.6:49%GLM-5.1:52.3%SWE-RebenchCoding
Normalized gap 2.0Claude Sonnet 4.6:60.7%GLM-5.1:62.7%FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Math
Normalized gap 1.0Claude Sonnet 4.6:32.400%GLM-5.1:33.448%
Bars run 0–100 on each benchmark’s normalized display scale
Category results, on a stated basis
Each row shows the public-lane category score for both models: the BenchAlign v5.6 lane for agentic, coding, and knowledge, and the weighted public rows elsewhere, with the same rank each model page reports. A row is like-for-like only when both scores rest on Supported evidence or the same weighted set. Directional and not-comparable rows remain visible, but they never receive a winner.
Coding
Like-for-like- Claude Sonnet 4.6
- 48.5
- Supported · #41/135
- GLM-5.1
- 51.5
- Supported · #36/135
- Basis
- BenchAlign v5.6 lane · 8 vs 7 public rows
- Reading
- GLM-5.1 leads · intervals overlap
Knowledge
Like-for-like- Claude Sonnet 4.6
- 50.8
- Supported · #52/160
- GLM-5.1
- 50.2
- Supported · #54/160
- Basis
- BenchAlign v5.6 lane · 6 vs 4 public rows
- Reading
- Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads · intervals overlap
Agentic
Directional only- Claude Sonnet 4.6
- 41.0
- Supported · #44/105
- GLM-5.1
- 42.1
- Estimated · #43/105
- Basis
- BenchAlign v5.6 lane · 9 vs 9 public rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Instruction following
Directional only- Claude Sonnet 4.6
- 46.6
- #88/124
- GLM-5.1
- 92.4
- #4/124
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Reasoning
Not comparable- Claude Sonnet 4.6
- 67.9
- Unranked · 2 rankable rows
- GLM-5.1
- 71.7
- Unranked · 2 rankable rows
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multimodal
Not comparable- Claude Sonnet 4.6
- 54.1
- #35/50
- GLM-5.1
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 1 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multilingual
Not comparable- Claude Sonnet 4.6
- Not ranked
- GLM-5.1
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Math
Not comparable- Claude Sonnet 4.6
- 48.8
- Unranked · 2 rankable rows
- GLM-5.1
- 63.8
- #3/7
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 2 vs 4 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
| Category | Claude Sonnet 4.6 | GLM-5.1 | Basis | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | 48.5Supported · #41/135 | 51.5Supported · #36/135 | Like-for-likeBenchAlign v5.6 lane · 8 vs 7 public rows | GLM-5.1 leads · intervals overlap |
| Knowledge | 50.8Supported · #52/160 | 50.2Supported · #54/160 | Like-for-likeBenchAlign v5.6 lane · 6 vs 4 public rows | Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads · intervals overlap |
| Agentic | 41.0Supported · #44/105 | 42.1Estimated · #43/105 | Directional onlyBenchAlign v5.6 lane · 9 vs 9 public rows | Directional only |
| Instruction following | 46.6#88/124 | 92.4#4/124 | Directional onlyProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Directional only |
| Reasoning | 67.9Unranked · 2 rankable rows | 71.7Unranked · 2 rankable rows | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Multimodal | 54.1#35/50 | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 1 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Multilingual | Not ranked | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Math | 48.8Unranked · 2 rankable rows | 63.8#3/7 | Not comparableProvisional lane · 2 vs 4 weighted rows | Not comparable |
Ranks count the models scored in each category’s lane, so the agentic, coding, and knowledge denominators (BenchAlign v5.6) differ from the provisional-lane categories. Unranked scores sit on the provisional lane’s scale but never name a winner. Like-for-like rows within 0.5 points read as a practical tie.
Supported evidence per lane · bars run 0–100Methodology
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 Sonnet 4.6
- $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 Sonnet 4.6
- $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 Sonnet 4.6
- $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 Sonnet 4.6 does not fit this workload in one request. GLM-5.1 does not fit this workload in one request. Claude Sonnet 4.6 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.
Cached input falls back to the list input rate only where a cached rate is unpublished
Specification differences
Sourced differences are shown directly. Missing facts stay explicit instead of being inferred from a model name or family.
SpecificationClaude Sonnet 4.6GLM-5.1
Context window
Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.
Claude Sonnet 4.6
200K
GLM-5.1
203K
API model ID
Claude Sonnet 4.6
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 Sonnet 4.6
Not published
GLM-5.1
Not published
Documented inputs
Claude Sonnet 4.6
Not sourced
GLM-5.1
Not sourced
Documented outputs
Claude Sonnet 4.6
Not sourced
GLM-5.1
Not sourced
Provider availability
Claude Sonnet 4.6
Not sourced
GLM-5.1
Not sourced
Reasoning profile
Claude Sonnet 4.6
Non-Reasoning
GLM-5.1
Reasoning
Weight access
Claude Sonnet 4.6
Proprietary
GLM-5.1
Open Weight
License
Claude Sonnet 4.6
Proprietary
GLM-5.1
Open Weight
Release date
Claude Sonnet 4.6
2026-02-01
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 estimate, 57.71 versus 56.73, but the 90% score intervals 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.
Questions
Which is better, Claude Sonnet 4.6 or GLM-5.1?
GLM-5.1 has the higher public score estimate, 57.71 versus 56.73, but the 90% score intervals overlap. The higher estimate is not a decisive winner because the uncertainty ranges overlap.
Which is better for coding, Claude Sonnet 4.6 or GLM-5.1?
GLM-5.1 leads the public coding lane, 51.5 to 48.5, with Supported evidence for both models, although the 90% intervals overlap.
Which is better for agentic tasks, Claude Sonnet 4.6 or GLM-5.1?
GLM-5.1 scores higher for agentic tasks on the public lane, 42.1 to 41. GLM-5.1 is scored on Estimated evidence for agentic tasks, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like. BenchLM does not name a winner for agentic tasks from a directional reading; read the shared benchmark rows directly and test the models on the same task set.
Which costs less, Claude Sonnet 4.6 or GLM-5.1?
For the stated presets, chat costs $0.0105 on Claude Sonnet 4.6 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 Sonnet 4.6 does not fit this workload in one request. GLM-5.1 does not fit this workload in one request. Claude Sonnet 4.6 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 Sonnet 4.6 or GLM-5.1?
GLM-5.1 has the larger documented context window: 203K, compared with 200K.
Self-host vs API cost
Estimates at 50,000 req/day · 1000 tokens/req average.
Claude Sonnet 4.6
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 evidence38 rows
Agentic
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Claude Sonnet 4.659.1%SourceGLM-5.163.5%SourceGLM-5.1 leads this result
OSWorld-Verified
Claude Sonnet 4.672.1%SourceGLM-5.1—Not directly comparable
Claw-Eval
Shared sourceClaude Sonnet 4.667.8%GLM-5.162.3%Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads this result
CyberGym
Shared sourceClaude Sonnet 4.665.2%GLM-5.168.7%GLM-5.1 leads this result
Gert Labs
Shared sourceClaude Sonnet 4.662.92%GLM-5.160.11%Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads this result
OSWorld 2.0
Claude Sonnet 4.68.3%SourceGLM-5.1—Not directly comparable
JobBench
Claude Sonnet 4.636.9%SourceGLM-5.1—Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals)
Claude Sonnet 4.657.3%SourceGLM-5.156.9%SourceClaude Sonnet 4.6 leads this result
ApprenticeBench
Claude Sonnet 4.62%SourceGLM-5.1—Not directly comparable
BrowseComp
Claude Sonnet 4.6—GLM-5.168%SourceNot directly comparable
τ³-bench results
Claude Sonnet 4.6—GLM-5.170.6%SourceNot directly comparable
MCP Atlas
Claude Sonnet 4.6—GLM-5.171.8%SourceNot directly comparable
ResearchClawBench
Claude Sonnet 4.6—GLM-5.118.2%SourceNot directly comparable
Coding
SWE-bench Verified
Claude Sonnet 4.679.6%SourceGLM-5.1—Not directly comparable
SWE-Rebench
Claude Sonnet 4.660.7%SourceGLM-5.162.7%SourceGLM-5.1 leads this result
React Native Evals
Claude Sonnet 4.680.6%SourceGLM-5.1—Not directly comparable
Vibe Code Bench
Shared sourceClaude Sonnet 4.651.48%GLM-5.131.46%Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads this result
cursorBench31
Claude Sonnet 4.648.8%SourceGLM-5.1—Not directly comparable
FrontierCode 1.1 Main
Claude Sonnet 4.624.3%SourceGLM-5.1—Not directly comparable
LiveCodeBench (Vals)
Claude Sonnet 4.682.1%SourceGLM-5.181.4%SourceClaude Sonnet 4.6 leads this result
SWE-bench (Vals)
Claude Sonnet 4.677.4%SourceGLM-5.176.4%SourceClaude Sonnet 4.6 leads this result
SWE-bench Pro
Claude Sonnet 4.6—GLM-5.158.4%SourceNot directly comparable
NL2Repo
Claude Sonnet 4.6—GLM-5.142.7%SourceNot directly comparable
OpenHarmony Bench
Claude Sonnet 4.6—GLM-5.152.3%SourceNot directly comparable
Multimodal
CharXiv
Claude Sonnet 4.677.4%SourceGLM-5.1—Not directly comparable
Knowledge
GPQA
Claude Sonnet 4.689.9%SourceGLM-5.1—Not directly comparable
SuperGPQA
Claude Sonnet 4.695%SourceGLM-5.1—Not directly comparable
MMLU-Pro
Claude Sonnet 4.679.2%SourceGLM-5.1—Not directly comparable
HLE
Claude Sonnet 4.649%SourceGLM-5.152.3%SourceGLM-5.1 leads this result
GPQA Diamond (Vals)
Claude Sonnet 4.685.6%SourceGLM-5.184.5%SourceClaude Sonnet 4.6 leads this result
MMLU-Pro (Vals)
Claude Sonnet 4.687.3%SourceGLM-5.186.9%SourceClaude Sonnet 4.6 leads this result
GPQA-D
Claude Sonnet 4.6—GLM-5.186.2%SourceNot directly comparable
Math
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)
Shared sourceClaude Sonnet 4.632.400%GLM-5.133.448%GLM-5.1 leads this result
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)
Shared sourceClaude Sonnet 4.68.300%GLM-5.112.500%GLM-5.1 leads this result
AIME26
Claude Sonnet 4.6—GLM-5.195.3%SourceNot directly comparable
HMMT Nov 2025
Claude Sonnet 4.6—GLM-5.194.0%SourceNot directly comparable
HMMT Feb 2026
Claude Sonnet 4.6—GLM-5.182.6%SourceNot directly comparable
MMAnswerBench
Claude Sonnet 4.6—GLM-5.183.8%SourceNot directly comparable
38 public results · 14 shared
Watch Claude Sonnet 4.6 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.
Last updated September 23, 2026