Model comparison
Gemini 3.1 Pro vs GLM-5
Head-to-head evidence from 19 shared benchmark results across 7 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: Gemini 3.1 Pro #83 (Estimated); GLM-5 #28 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Gemini 3.1 Pro and GLM-5 share 19 comparable benchmark results. 2 of 8 categories are comparable. 28 results are unique to Gemini 3.1 Pro; 30 to GLM-5.
Updated July 20, 2026- Shared results
- 19
- Gemini 3.1 Pro only
- 28
- GLM-5 only
- 30
- Comparable categories
- 2 / 8
Pick GLM-5 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Gemini 3.1 Pro only becomes the better choice if reasoning is the priority or you need the larger 1M context window.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 19 shared benchmark results across 7 evidence categories; 2 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.
Why this result
GLM-5 is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 66.06 to 55.3. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
GLM-5's sharpest advantage is in mathematics, where it averages 56.3 against 31.8. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3), 36.900% to 16.434%. Gemini 3.1 Pro does hit back in reasoning, so the answer changes if that is the part of the workload you care about most.
Gemini 3.1 Pro is also the more expensive model on tokens at $2.00 input / $12.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $1.00 input / $3.20 output per 1M tokens for GLM-5. That is roughly 3.8x on output cost alone. Gemini 3.1 Pro gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 200K for GLM-5.
Category breakdown
Exact category averages are shown below. Not measured means BenchLM does not have enough sourced public coverage for that model and category.
| Category | Gemini 3.1 Pro | Δ | GLM-5 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Math | Gemini 3.1 Pro31.8 | Margin→ 24.5 | GLM-556.3 |
| Reasoning | Gemini 3.1 Pro77.1 | Margin← 16.3 | GLM-560.8 |
| Agentic | Gemini 3.1 ProNot measured | MarginNo overlap | GLM-556.2 |
| Coding | Gemini 3.1 ProNot measured | MarginNo overlap | GLM-566.3 |
| Knowledge | Gemini 3.1 ProNot measured | MarginNo overlap | GLM-566.4 |
| Multilingual | Gemini 3.1 ProNot measured | MarginNo overlap | GLM-583.1 |
| Multimodal | Gemini 3.1 Pro82.6 | MarginNo overlap | GLM-5Not measured |
| Inst. Following | Gemini 3.1 ProNot measured | MarginNo overlap | GLM-592.6 |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)
MathA 36.900%B 16.434%Winner: Gemini 3.1 ProΔ 20.5FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3): Gemini 3.1 Pro scored 36.900%; GLM-5 scored 16.434%. Gemini 3.1 Pro wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)
MathA 16.700%B 2.100%Winner: Gemini 3.1 ProΔ 14.6FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4): Gemini 3.1 Pro scored 16.700%; GLM-5 scored 2.100%. Gemini 3.1 Pro wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Gemini 3.1 Pro | GLM-5 | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Gemini 3.1 Pro$2 input / $12 output | GLM-5$1 input / $3.2 output | GLM-5 has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Gemini 3.1 Pro109 tok/s | GLM-574 tok/s | Gemini 3.1 Pro has the higher measured throughput. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Gemini 3.1 Pro29.71 s | GLM-51.64 s | GLM-5 reaches the first token sooner. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Gemini 3.1 Pro1M | GLM-5200K | Gemini 3.1 Pro lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic25 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.1 Pro | GLM-5 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Claw-EvalSource | 57.8% | 57.7% | Gemini 3.1 Pro leads |
| DeepSearchQASource | 69.7% | — | Not comparable |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | 95.6% | 98.2% | GLM-5 leads |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | 21.4% | — | Not comparable |
| APEX-Agents-AASource | 32.0% | 14.5% | Gemini 3.1 Pro leads |
| GDPval-AASource | 23.2% | — | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | 965 | — | Not comparable |
| Gert LabsSource | 56.87% | 50.99% | Gemini 3.1 Pro leads |
| ResearchClawBenchSource | 13.3% | — | Not comparable |
| AA AutomationBenchSource | 37.5% | — | Not comparable |
| AA EnterpriseOps-GymSource | 42.2% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Harvey LABSource | 0.0% | — | Not comparable |
| AA ITBenchSource | 30.3% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Tau3 BankingSource | 16.5% | — | Not comparable |
| terminalBenchHardSource | 53.8% | — | Not comparable |
| aaTerminalBench21Source | 73.8% | — | Not comparable |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | — | 56.2% | Not comparable |
| QwenClawBenchSource | — | 54.1% | Not comparable |
| τ³-bench resultsSource | — | 65.6% | Not comparable |
| DeepPlanningSource | — | 14.6% | Not comparable |
| ToolathlonSource | — | 38% | Not comparable |
| MCP AtlasSource | — | 31.1% | Not comparable |
| MCP-TasksSource | — | 60.8% | Not comparable |
| WideResearchSource | — | 69.8% | Not comparable |
| CyberGymSource | — | 43.2% | Not comparable |
Coding10 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.1 Pro | GLM-5 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| LiveCodeBench ProSource | 82.9% | — | Not comparable |
| React Native EvalsSource | 78.9% | 74.8% | Gemini 3.1 Pro leads |
| Vibe Code BenchSource | 32.03% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Coding IndexSource | 68.8% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 58.9% | 46.2% | Gemini 3.1 Pro leads |
| SWE-bench VerifiedSource | — | 77.8% | Not comparable |
| SWE-bench Verified*Source | — | 72.8% | Not comparable |
| SWE-bench ProSource | — | 55.1% | Not comparable |
| SWE MultilingualSource | — | 73.3% | Not comparable |
| SWE-RebenchSource | — | 62.8% | Not comparable |
ReasoningGemini 3.1 Pro wins5 benchmarks
Knowledge15 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.1 Pro | GLM-5 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQA-DSource | 94.3% | 86.0% | Gemini 3.1 Pro leads |
| HLE w/o toolsSource | 45.4% | — | Not comparable |
| HealthBench HardSource | 20.6% | — | Not comparable |
| MedXpertQA (Text)Source | 71.5% | — | Not comparable |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 46.5% | 39.5% | Gemini 3.1 Pro leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 94.1% | 82.0% | Gemini 3.1 Pro leads |
| AA-HLESource | 44.7% | 27.2% | Gemini 3.1 Pro leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | 32.9% | 2.0% | Gemini 3.1 Pro leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 55.3% | 26.9% | Gemini 3.1 Pro leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 49.9% | 34.0% | GLM-5 leads |
| GPQASource | — | 86% | Not comparable |
| SuperGPQASource | — | 66.8% | Not comparable |
| MMLU-ProSource | — | 85.7% | Not comparable |
| MMLU-Pro (Arcee)Source | — | 85.8% | Not comparable |
| HLESource | — | 50.4% | Not comparable |
MathGLM-5 wins8 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.1 Pro | GLM-5 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source | 36.900% | 16.434% | Gemini 3.1 Pro leads |
| FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source | 16.700% | 2.100% | Gemini 3.1 Pro leads |
| AIME26Source | — | 95.8% | Not comparable |
| AIME25 (Arcee)Source | — | 93.3% | Not comparable |
| HMMT Feb 2025Source | — | 97.5% | Not comparable |
| HMMT Nov 2025Source | — | 96.9% | Not comparable |
| HMMT Feb 2026Source | — | 86.4% | Not comparable |
| MMAnswerBenchSource | — | 82.5% | Not comparable |
Multilingual3 benchmarks
Multimodal9 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.1 Pro | GLM-5 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMMU-ProSource | 83.9% | — | Not comparable |
| CharXivSource | 80.2% | — | Not comparable |
| ERQASource | 69.4% | — | Not comparable |
| SimpleVQASource | 72.4% | — | Not comparable |
| ScreenSpot ProSource | 84.4% | — | Not comparable |
| ZeroBenchSource | 29.0% | — | Not comparable |
| MedXpertQA (MM)Source | 81.3% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-MMMU-ProSource | 82.4% | — | Not comparable |
| Design Arena WebsiteSource | 1284 | 1280 | Gemini 3.1 Pro leads |
Frequently Asked Questions (3)
Which is better, Gemini 3.1 Pro or GLM-5?
GLM-5 is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 66.06 to 55.3. The biggest single separator in this matchup is FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3), where the scores are 36.900% and 16.434%.
Which is better for math, Gemini 3.1 Pro or GLM-5?
GLM-5 has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 56.3 versus 31.8. Inside this category, FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3) is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for reasoning, Gemini 3.1 Pro or GLM-5?
Gemini 3.1 Pro has the edge for reasoning in this comparison, averaging 77.1 versus 60.8. Inside this category, CritPt is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
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.