Model comparison
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite vs GLM-5.1
Head-to-head evidence from 15 shared benchmark results across 4 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite unranked (Not scored); GLM-5.1 #18 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite and GLM-5.1 share 15 comparable benchmark results. 2 of 8 categories are comparable. 6 results are unique to Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite; 21 to GLM-5.1.
Updated July 21, 2026- Shared results
- 15
- Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite only
- 6
- GLM-5.1 only
- 21
- Comparable categories
- 2 / 8
Treat this as a split decision. Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite makes more sense if you want the cheaper token bill or you need the larger 1M context window; GLM-5.1 is the better fit if coding is the priority.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 15 shared benchmark results across 4 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
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite 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 also the more expensive model on tokens at $1.40 input / $4.40 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.30 input / $2.50 output per 1M tokens for Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite. Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 203K for GLM-5.1.
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 3.5 Flash-Lite | Δ | GLM-5.1 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite54.2 | Margin→ 7.1 | GLM-5.161.3 |
| Agentic | Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite63.4 | Margin→ 2.0 | GLM-5.165.4 |
| Reasoning | Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite72.2 | MarginNo overlap | GLM-5.1Not measured |
| Knowledge | Gemini 3.5 Flash-LiteNot measured | MarginNo overlap | GLM-5.152.3 |
| Math | Gemini 3.5 Flash-LiteNot measured | MarginNo overlap | GLM-5.162.0 |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
Terminal-Bench 2.0
AgenticA 54%B 63.5%Winner: GLM-5.1Δ 9.5Terminal-Bench 2.0: Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite scored 54%; GLM-5.1 scored 63.5%. GLM-5.1 wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
SWE-bench Pro
CodingA 54.2%B 58.4%Winner: GLM-5.1Δ 4.2SWE-bench Pro: Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite scored 54.2%; GLM-5.1 scored 58.4%. GLM-5.1 wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite | GLM-5.1 | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite$0.3 input / $2.5 output | GLM-5.1$1.4 input / $4.4 output | Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Gemini 3.5 Flash-LiteNot available | GLM-5.1Not available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Gemini 3.5 Flash-LiteNot available | GLM-5.1Not available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite1M | GLM-5.1203K | Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
AgenticGLM-5.1 wins15 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite | GLM-5.1 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 54% | 63.5% | GLM-5.1 leads |
| OSWorld-VerifiedSource | 74% | — | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | 1140 | 1257 | GLM-5.1 leads |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | 26.8% | 29.9% | GLM-5.1 leads |
| GDPval-AASource | 32.0% | 37.8% | GLM-5.1 leads |
| AA BriefcaseSource | 634 | — | Not comparable |
| AA Tau3 BankingSource | 16.5% | — | 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 |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | — | 97.7% | Not comparable |
| Gert LabsSource | — | 60.11% | Not comparable |
| ResearchClawBenchSource | — | 18.2% | Not comparable |
CodingGLM-5.1 wins7 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite | GLM-5.1 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 54.0% | — | Not comparable |
| SWE-bench ProSource | 54.2% | 58.4% | GLM-5.1 leads |
| AA Coding IndexSource | 49.3% | 55.8% | GLM-5.1 leads |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 40.9% | 43.8% | GLM-5.1 leads |
| NL2RepoSource | — | 42.7% | Not comparable |
| SWE-RebenchSource | — | 62.7% | Not comparable |
| Vibe Code BenchSource | — | 31.46% | Not comparable |
Reasoning3 benchmarks
Knowledge8 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite | GLM-5.1 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 36.5% | 40.2% | GLM-5.1 leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 83.8% | 86.8% | GLM-5.1 leads |
| AA-HLESource | 17.5% | 28.0% | GLM-5.1 leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | 6.9% | 1.9% | Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 30.3% | 24.2% | Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 33.5% | 29.4% | GLM-5.1 leads |
| GPQA-DSource | — | 86.2% | Not comparable |
| HLESource | — | 52.3% | Not comparable |
Math6 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite | GLM-5.1 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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 |
Multimodal2 benchmarks
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite | GLM-5.1 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | — | 76.3% | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (3)
Which is better, Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite or GLM-5.1?
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite 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 coding, Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite or GLM-5.1?
GLM-5.1 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 61.3 versus 54.2. Inside this category, AA Coding Index is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for agentic tasks, Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite or GLM-5.1?
GLM-5.1 has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 65.4 versus 63.4. Inside this category, GDPval-AA is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
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.