Model comparison
DeepSeek V4 Pro Base vs GLM-5.1
Head-to-head evidence from 0 shared benchmark results across 0 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: DeepSeek V4 Pro Base unranked (Not scored); GLM-5.1 #18 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. DeepSeek V4 Pro Base and GLM-5.1 share 0 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 24 results are unique to DeepSeek V4 Pro Base; 36 to GLM-5.1.
Updated July 23, 2026- Shared results
- 0
- DeepSeek V4 Pro Base only
- 24
- GLM-5.1 only
- 36
- Comparable categories
- 1 / 8
Treat this as a split decision. DeepSeek V4 Pro Base makes more sense if knowledge is the priority or you need the larger 1M context window; GLM-5.1 is the better fit if you want the stronger reasoning-first profile.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 0 shared benchmark results across 0 evidence categories; 1 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.
Why this result
DeepSeek V4 Pro Base and GLM-5.1 finish on the same BenchAlign overall score, so this is less about a single winner and more about where the edge shows up. The BenchAlign headline says tie; the benchmark table is where the real choice happens.
GLM-5.1 is the reasoning model in the pair, while DeepSeek V4 Pro Base is not. That usually helps on harder chain-of-thought-heavy tests, but it can also mean more latency and more token spend in real use. DeepSeek V4 Pro Base gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 203K for GLM-5.1.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | DeepSeek V4 Pro Base | GLM-5.1 | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | DeepSeek V4 Pro BaseNot available | GLM-5.1$1.4 input / $4.4 output | A complete price comparison is not available. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | DeepSeek V4 Pro BaseNot available | GLM-5.1Not available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | DeepSeek V4 Pro BaseNot available | GLM-5.1Not available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | DeepSeek V4 Pro Base1M | GLM-5.1203K | DeepSeek V4 Pro Base lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic12 benchmarks
| Benchmark | DeepSeek V4 Pro Base | GLM-5.1 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | — | 63.5% | Not comparable |
| BrowseCompSource | — | 68% | Not comparable |
| τ³-bench resultsSource | — | 70.6% | Not comparable |
| MCP AtlasSource | — | 71.8% | Not comparable |
| CyberGymSource | — | 68.7% | Not comparable |
| Claw-EvalSource | — | 62.3% | Not comparable |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | — | 29.9% | Not comparable |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | — | 97.7% | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | — | 37.8% | Not comparable |
| Gert LabsSource | — | 60.11% | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | — | 1257 | Not comparable |
| ResearchClawBenchSource | — | 18.2% | Not comparable |
Coding8 benchmarks
| Benchmark | DeepSeek V4 Pro Base | GLM-5.1 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| BigCodeBenchSource | 59.2% | — | Not comparable |
| HumanEvalSource | 76.8% | — | Not comparable |
| SWE-bench ProSource | — | 58.4% | Not comparable |
| NL2RepoSource | — | 42.7% | Not comparable |
| SWE-RebenchSource | — | 62.7% | Not comparable |
| Vibe Code BenchSource | — | 31.46% | Not comparable |
| AA Coding IndexSource | — | 55.8% | Not comparable |
| AA-SciCodeSource | — | 43.8% | Not comparable |
Reasoning8 benchmarks
| Benchmark | DeepSeek V4 Pro Base | GLM-5.1 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| BBHSource | 87.5% | — | Not comparable |
| DROPSource | 88.7% | — | Not comparable |
| HellaSwagSource | 88.0% | — | Not comparable |
| WinoGrandeSource | 81.5% | — | Not comparable |
| CLUEWSCSource | 85.2% | — | Not comparable |
| LongBench v2Source | 51.5% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-LCRSource | — | 62.3% | Not comparable |
| CritPtSource | — | 4.6% | Not comparable |
KnowledgeDeepSeek V4 Pro Base wins20 benchmarks
| Benchmark | DeepSeek V4 Pro Base | GLM-5.1 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AGIEvalSource | 83.1% | — | Not comparable |
| MMLUSource | 90.1% | — | Not comparable |
| MMLU-ReduxSource | 90.8% | — | Not comparable |
| MMLU-ProSource | 73.5% | — | Not comparable |
| MMMLUSource | 90.3% | — | Not comparable |
| C-EvalSource | 93.1% | — | Not comparable |
| CMMLUSource | 90.8% | — | Not comparable |
| MultiLoKoSource | 51.1% | — | Not comparable |
| SimpleQASource | 55.2% | — | Not comparable |
| SuperGPQASource | 53.9% | — | Not comparable |
| FACTS ParametricSource | 62.6% | — | Not comparable |
| TriviaQASource | 85.6% | — | Not comparable |
| GPQA-DSource | — | 86.2% | Not comparable |
| HLESource | — | 52.3% | Not comparable |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | — | 40.2% | Not comparable |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | — | 86.8% | Not comparable |
| AA-HLESource | — | 28.0% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | — | 1.9% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | — | 24.2% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | — | 29.4% | Not comparable |
Math9 benchmarks
| Benchmark | DeepSeek V4 Pro Base | GLM-5.1 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| GSM8KSource | 92.6% | — | Not comparable |
| MATHSource | 64.5% | — | Not comparable |
| CMathSource | 90.9% | — | Not comparable |
| AIME26Source | — | 95.3% | Not comparable |
| HMMT Nov 2025Source | — | 94.0% | Not comparable |
| HMMT Feb 2026Source | — | 82.6% | Not comparable |
| MMAnswerBenchSource | — | 83.8% | Not comparable |
| FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source | — | 33.448% | Not comparable |
| FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source | — | 12.500% | Not comparable |
Multilingual1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | DeepSeek V4 Pro Base | GLM-5.1 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| MGSMSource | 84.4% | — | Not comparable |
Multimodal1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | DeepSeek V4 Pro Base | GLM-5.1 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Design Arena WebsiteSource | — | 1305 | Not comparable |
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | DeepSeek V4 Pro Base | GLM-5.1 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | — | 76.3% | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (2)
Which is better, DeepSeek V4 Pro Base or GLM-5.1?
DeepSeek V4 Pro Base and GLM-5.1 are tied on the BenchAlign overall score, so the right pick depends on which category matters most for your use case.
Which is better for knowledge tasks, DeepSeek V4 Pro Base or GLM-5.1?
DeepSeek V4 Pro Base has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 66.4 versus 52.3. GLM-5.1 stays close enough that the answer can still flip depending on your workload.
Self-host vs API cost
Estimates at 50,000 req/day · 1000 tokens/req average.
Related Comparisons
Explore More
Choose a model with this week’s evidence
Join 2,000+ readers for ranking moves, pricing changes, and the claims that still need proof.
One email each week. Unsubscribe anytime.