Skip to main content
Radar

Provider changes are easy to miss. Radar watches releases, pricing, deprecations, and incidents at the source.Provider changes are easy to miss.

See Radar
BenchLM
Advertise

Model comparison

Gemini 3 Flash vs GLM-5.1

Updated August 7, 2026. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. They are not guarantees for a specific workload.

Gemini 3 Flash

Google

59.5/100

Supported · Public rank #57

90% interval 40.8–78.2

GLM-5.1

Z.AI

66.9/100

Supported · Public rank #22

90% interval 57.1–76.7

GLM-5.1 has the higher public score estimate, 66.9 versus 59.52, but the 90% score intervals overlap. Treat that as a lead, not a settled winner.

5 results are shared. Category rows based on different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.

Which one for your work

Recommendations appear only when a shared evidence basis or an explicit operating constraint supports the call. Secondary and unsupported use cases stay disclosed below the initial list.

  • Long documents

    Prompts that approach the documented context limit

    Gemini 3 Flash

    Gemini 3 Flash has the larger documented context window.

    Confidence: documented

  • Chat turn cost

    1K fresh input + 500 output tokens

    Gemini 3 Flash

    Gemini 3 Flash has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.

    Confidence: listed-rates

Show secondary and unsupported calls

  • Repository review cost

    50K fresh input + 3K output tokens

    Gemini 3 Flash

    Gemini 3 Flash has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.

    Confidence: listed-rates

  • Coding work

    Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks

    Not enough matched evidence

    No shared weighted benchmark basis supports a winner.

    Confidence: limited

  • Agentic work

    Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion

    Not enough matched evidence

    No shared weighted benchmark basis supports a winner.

    Confidence: limited

  • Cache-heavy agent loop cost

    200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens

    Not enough matched evidence

    The page does not recommend a cost winner because at least one model cannot fit the stated workload in one request. GLM-5.1 does not fit this workload in one request. GLM-5.1 has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.

    Confidence: rate-fallback

What is actually comparable

Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results present for only one model describe coverage, not superiority.

Shared results
5
Gemini 3 Flash only
1
GLM-5.1 only
15
Like-for-like categories
0 / 8

1 category uses different evidence sets. Those rows remain visible for coverage context but do not name a winner.

Category results, on a stated basis

Each row states whether both averages use the same weighted benchmark set. Directional and not-comparable rows remain visible, but they never receive a winner in this template.

Math

Directional only
Gemini 3 Flash
27.8
GLM-5.1
62.0
Weighted basis
2 vs 4 rows
Reading
Directional only

Agentic

Not comparable
Gemini 3 Flash
Not measured
GLM-5.1
65.4
Weighted basis
0 vs 2 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Coding

Not comparable
Gemini 3 Flash
Not measured
GLM-5.1
61.3
Weighted basis
0 vs 2 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Reasoning

Not comparable
Gemini 3 Flash
Not measured
GLM-5.1
Not measured
Weighted basis
0 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Knowledge

Not comparable
Gemini 3 Flash
Not measured
GLM-5.1
52.3
Weighted basis
0 vs 1 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multilingual

Not comparable
Gemini 3 Flash
Not measured
GLM-5.1
Not measured
Weighted basis
0 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multimodal

Not comparable
Gemini 3 Flash
Not measured
GLM-5.1
Not measured
Weighted basis
0 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Instruction following

Not comparable
Gemini 3 Flash
Not measured
GLM-5.1
Not measured
Weighted basis
0 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Shape of the matched evidence

Only shared public evidence is shown. Sparse evidence stays a ruled list rather than being closed into a radar shape.

Too few matched category axes support a radar. The ruled list below shows only shared benchmark results; positions use each benchmark’s normalized display scale when available.

  • FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)

    Math

    Gemini 3 Flash: 4.167%GLM-5.1: 12.500%Normalized gap 8.3Shared source

  • FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)

    Math

    Gemini 3 Flash: 35.640%GLM-5.1: 33.448%Normalized gap 2.2Shared source

What each workload costs

Three fixed token mixes turn per-token rates into comparable decisions. Each scenario states context fit and whether cached input had to fall back to the published list-input rate.

Chat turn

1K fresh input + 500 output tokens

Gemini 3 Flash
$0.002
Fits in one request
GLM-5.1
$0.0036
Fits in one request

Gemini 3 Flash has the lower modeled cost

Costs use the listed standard API rates.

Repository review

50K fresh input + 3K output tokens

Gemini 3 Flash
$0.034
Fits in one request
GLM-5.1
$0.0832
Fits in one request

Gemini 3 Flash has the lower modeled cost

Costs use the listed standard API rates.

Cache-heavy agent loop

200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens

Gemini 3 Flash
$0.05
Fits in one request
GLM-5.1
$0.352
Does not fit in one request
Cached input priced at the published list-input rate

GLM-5.1 does not fit this workload in one request. GLM-5.1 has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.

Specification differences

Sourced differences are shown directly. Missing facts stay explicit instead of being inferred from a model name or family.

Context window

Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.

GLM-5.1

203K

Cached-input rate

A missing cached-input rate falls back to the listed input rate only in the stated workload estimate.

Gemini 3 Flash

$0.05 per 1M cached input tokens

Google Gemini API pricing

GLM-5.1

Not published

Documented inputs

Gemini 3 Flash

Not sourced

GLM-5.1

Not sourced

Documented outputs

Gemini 3 Flash

Not sourced

GLM-5.1

Not sourced

Provider availability

Gemini 3 Flash

Not sourced

GLM-5.1

Not sourced

Reasoning profile

Gemini 3 Flash

Non-Reasoning

GLM-5.1

Reasoning

Weight access

Gemini 3 Flash

Proprietary

GLM-5.1

Open Weight

License

Gemini 3 Flash

Proprietary

GLM-5.1

Open Weight

Release date

Gemini 3 Flash

2025-12-01

GLM-5.1

2026-04-07

If you already use one of these models
Deployment change
The models list different providers, so authentication, endpoint behavior, limits, and feature support may change.
Quality signal
GLM-5.1 has the higher public score estimate, 66.9 versus 59.52, but the 90% score intervals overlap.
Workload cost
Repository review: $0.034 vs $0.0832. Cache-heavy agent loop: $0.05 vs $0.352.
Context tradeoff
Gemini 3 Flash has the larger documented window (1M).

Run the same representative tasks against both endpoints before changing production traffic.

Self-host vs API cost

Estimates at 50,000 req/day · 1000 tokens/req average.

Gemini 3 Flash
API / mo$2,625
Self-host / moNot listed
Break-even—
Proprietary model — self-hosting not applicable.
GLM-5.1
API / mo$4,350
Self-host / mo$18,221
Break-even264M/day
Model the full break-even

Benchmark evidence

The full public result ledger is available for audit without forcing a wide desktop table onto a phone.

Browse raw public benchmark evidence21 rows

Agentic

  • Claw-Eval

    Shared source
    Gemini 3 Flash49.2%
    GLM-5.162.3%

    GLM-5.1 leads this result

  • Gert Labs

    Shared source
    Gemini 3 Flash56.63%
    GLM-5.160.11%

    GLM-5.1 leads this result

  • JobBench

    Gemini 3 Flash11.4%
    Source
    GLM-5.1—

    Not directly comparable

  • Terminal-Bench 2.0

    Gemini 3 Flash—
    GLM-5.163.5%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • BrowseComp

    Gemini 3 Flash—
    GLM-5.168%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • τ³-bench results

    Gemini 3 Flash—
    GLM-5.170.6%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • MCP Atlas

    Gemini 3 Flash—
    GLM-5.171.8%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • CyberGym

    Gemini 3 Flash—
    GLM-5.168.7%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • ResearchClawBench

    Gemini 3 Flash—
    GLM-5.118.2%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Coding

  • Vibe Code Bench

    Shared source
    Gemini 3 Flash20.20%
    GLM-5.131.46%

    GLM-5.1 leads this result

  • SWE-bench Pro

    Gemini 3 Flash—
    GLM-5.158.4%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • NL2Repo

    Gemini 3 Flash—
    GLM-5.142.7%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • SWE-Rebench

    Gemini 3 Flash—
    GLM-5.162.7%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Knowledge

  • GPQA-D

    Gemini 3 Flash—
    GLM-5.186.2%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • HLE

    Gemini 3 Flash—
    GLM-5.152.3%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Math

  • FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)

    Shared source
    Gemini 3 Flash35.640%
    GLM-5.133.448%

    Gemini 3 Flash leads this result

  • FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)

    Shared source
    Gemini 3 Flash4.167%
    GLM-5.112.500%

    GLM-5.1 leads this result

  • AIME26

    Gemini 3 Flash—
    GLM-5.195.3%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • HMMT Nov 2025

    Gemini 3 Flash—
    GLM-5.194.0%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • HMMT Feb 2026

    Gemini 3 Flash—
    GLM-5.182.6%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • MMAnswerBench

    Gemini 3 Flash—
    GLM-5.183.8%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Frequently asked questions

Which is better, Gemini 3 Flash or GLM-5.1?

GLM-5.1 has the higher public score estimate, 66.9 versus 59.52, but the 90% score intervals overlap. The higher estimate is not a decisive winner because the uncertainty ranges overlap.

Which is better for coding, Gemini 3 Flash or GLM-5.1?

The published evidence does not provide a shared weighted coding basis for both models, so BenchLM does not name a coding winner.

Which is better for agentic tasks, Gemini 3 Flash or GLM-5.1?

The published evidence does not provide a shared weighted agentic tasks basis for both models, so BenchLM does not name a agentic tasks winner.

Which costs less, Gemini 3 Flash or GLM-5.1?

For the stated presets, chat costs $0.002 on Gemini 3 Flash and $0.0036 on GLM-5.1; repository review costs $0.034 and $0.0832; the cache-heavy agent loop costs $0.05 and $0.352. GLM-5.1 does not fit this workload in one request. GLM-5.1 has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.

Which has the larger context window, Gemini 3 Flash or GLM-5.1?

Gemini 3 Flash has the larger documented context window: 1M, compared with 203K.

Related comparisons

Compare API pricing Read the methodology Open the model selector

Last updated August 7, 2026

Watch Gemini 3 Flash vs GLM-5.1

One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.

Read a sample issue

Join 2,000+ readers.