Head-to-head comparison across 1benchmark categories. Overall scores shown here use BenchLM's provisional ranking lane.
Gemma 4 26B A4B
54
GLM-5.1
82
Verified leaderboard positions: Gemma 4 26B A4B unranked · GLM-5.1 #29
Pick GLM-5.1 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Gemma 4 26B A4B only becomes the better choice if you want the cheaper token bill or you need the larger 256K context window.
Knowledge
+3.1 difference
Gemma 4 26B A4B
GLM-5.1
$0 / $0
$1.4 / $4.4
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
256K
203K
Pick GLM-5.1 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Gemma 4 26B A4B only becomes the better choice if you want the cheaper token bill or you need the larger 256K context window.
GLM-5.1 is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 82 to 54. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
GLM-5.1's sharpest advantage is in knowledge, where it averages 52.3 against 49.2. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is HLE, 17.2% to 52.3%.
GLM-5.1 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $1.40 input / $4.40 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.00 input / $0.00 output per 1M tokens for Gemma 4 26B A4B. That is roughly Infinityx on output cost alone. Gemma 4 26B A4B gives you the larger context window at 256K, compared with 203K for GLM-5.1.
GLM-5.1 is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 82 to 54. The biggest single separator in this matchup is HLE, where the scores are 17.2% and 52.3%.
GLM-5.1 has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 52.3 versus 49.2. Inside this category, AA-Omniscience Hallucination Rate is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Estimates at 50,000 req/day · 1000 tokens/req average.
For engineers, researchers, and the plain curious — a weekly brief on new models, ranking shifts, and pricing changes.
Free. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.