Model comparison
Gemini 3.6 Flash vs GLM-5.1
Head-to-head evidence from 13 shared benchmark results across 4 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: Gemini 3.6 Flash 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 3.6 Flash and GLM-5.1 share 13 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 6 results are unique to Gemini 3.6 Flash; 23 to GLM-5.1.
Updated July 21, 2026- Shared results
- 13
- Gemini 3.6 Flash only
- 6
- GLM-5.1 only
- 23
- Comparable categories
- 1 / 8
Treat this as a split decision. Gemini 3.6 Flash makes more sense if agentic is the priority or you need the larger 1M context window; GLM-5.1 is the better fit if you want the cheaper token bill.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 13 shared benchmark results across 4 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
Gemini 3.6 Flash 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.
Gemini 3.6 Flash is also the more expensive model on tokens at $1.50 input / $7.50 output per 1M tokens, versus $1.40 input / $4.40 output per 1M tokens for GLM-5.1. Gemini 3.6 Flash 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 3.6 Flash | Δ | GLM-5.1 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agentic | Gemini 3.6 Flash83.0 | Margin← 17.6 | GLM-5.165.4 |
| Coding | Gemini 3.6 FlashNot measured | MarginNo overlap | GLM-5.161.3 |
| Knowledge | Gemini 3.6 FlashNot measured | MarginNo overlap | GLM-5.152.3 |
| Math | Gemini 3.6 FlashNot measured | MarginNo overlap | GLM-5.162.0 |
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Gemini 3.6 Flash | GLM-5.1 | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Gemini 3.6 Flash$1.5 input / $7.5 output | GLM-5.1$1.4 input / $4.4 output | GLM-5.1 has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Gemini 3.6 FlashNot available | GLM-5.1Not available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Gemini 3.6 FlashNot available | GLM-5.1Not available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Gemini 3.6 Flash1M | GLM-5.1203K | Gemini 3.6 Flash lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
AgenticGemini 3.6 Flash wins16 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.6 Flash | GLM-5.1 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| OSWorld-VerifiedSource | 83% | — | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | 1421 | 1257 | Gemini 3.6 Flash leads |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | 38.7% | 29.9% | Gemini 3.6 Flash leads |
| GDPval-AASource | 46.1% | 37.8% | Gemini 3.6 Flash leads |
| AA BriefcaseSource | 961 | — | Not comparable |
| AA Tau3 BankingSource | 24.5% | — | Not comparable |
| aaTerminalBench21Source | 77.5% | — | Not comparable |
| 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 |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | — | 97.7% | Not comparable |
| Gert LabsSource | — | 60.11% | Not comparable |
| ResearchClawBenchSource | — | 18.2% | Not comparable |
Coding7 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.6 Flash | GLM-5.1 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| deepSweSource | 49% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Coding IndexSource | 69.2% | 55.8% | Gemini 3.6 Flash leads |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 52.7% | 43.8% | Gemini 3.6 Flash leads |
| 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 |
Reasoning2 benchmarks
Knowledge8 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.6 Flash | GLM-5.1 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 50.1% | 40.2% | Gemini 3.6 Flash leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 92.8% | 86.8% | Gemini 3.6 Flash leads |
| AA-HLESource | 38.3% | 28.0% | Gemini 3.6 Flash leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | 23.5% | 1.9% | Gemini 3.6 Flash leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 50.2% | 24.2% | Gemini 3.6 Flash leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 53.5% | 29.4% | GLM-5.1 leads |
| GPQA-DSource | — | 86.2% | Not comparable |
| HLESource | — | 52.3% | Not comparable |
Math6 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.6 Flash | 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 3.6 Flash | GLM-5.1 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | — | 76.3% | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (2)
Which is better, Gemini 3.6 Flash or GLM-5.1?
Gemini 3.6 Flash 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 agentic tasks, Gemini 3.6 Flash or GLM-5.1?
Gemini 3.6 Flash has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 83 versus 65.4. 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.