Head-to-head comparison across 2benchmark categories. Overall scores shown here use BenchLM's provisional ranking lane.
Composer 2
73
GLM-5.1
83
Verified leaderboard positions: Composer 2 unranked · GLM-5.1 #21
Pick GLM-5.1 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Composer 2 only becomes the better choice if you want the cheaper token bill.
Agentic
+3.6 difference
Coding
+2.9 difference
Composer 2
GLM-5.1
$0.5 / $2.5
$1.4 / $4.4
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
200K
203K
Pick GLM-5.1 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Composer 2 only becomes the better choice if you want the cheaper token bill.
GLM-5.1 is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 83 to 73. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
GLM-5.1's sharpest advantage is in agentic, where it averages 65.3 against 61.7. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is SWE-Rebench, 58% to 62.7%.
GLM-5.1 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $1.40 input / $4.40 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.50 input / $2.50 output per 1M tokens for Composer 2. GLM-5.1 gives you the larger context window at 203K, compared with 200K for Composer 2.
GLM-5.1 is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 83 to 73. The biggest single separator in this matchup is SWE-Rebench, where the scores are 58% and 62.7%.
GLM-5.1 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 60.9 versus 58. Inside this category, SWE-Rebench is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
GLM-5.1 has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 65.3 versus 61.7. Inside this category, Terminal-Bench 2.0 is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Estimates at 50,000 req/day · 1000 tokens/req average.
For engineers, researchers, and the plain curious — a weekly brief on new models, ranking shifts, and pricing changes.
Free. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.