Model comparison
GLM-4.6 vs GLM-5.1
Head-to-head evidence from 14 shared benchmark results across 6 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: GLM-4.6 #85 (Supported); GLM-5.1 #18 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. GLM-4.6 and GLM-5.1 share 14 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 0 results are unique to GLM-4.6; 22 to GLM-5.1.
Updated July 23, 2026- Shared results
- 14
- GLM-4.6 only
- 0
- GLM-5.1 only
- 22
- Comparable categories
- 1 / 8
Pick GLM-5.1 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. GLM-4.6 only becomes the better choice if its workflow or ecosystem matters more than the raw scoreboard.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 14 shared benchmark results across 6 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
GLM-5.1 is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 67.74 to 55.12. 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 mathematics, where it averages 62 against 3.4. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3), 3.819% to 33.448%.
GLM-5.1 gives you the larger context window at 203K, compared with 200K for GLM-4.6.
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 | GLM-4.6 | Δ | GLM-5.1 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Math | GLM-4.63.4 | Margin→ 58.6 | GLM-5.162.0 |
| Agentic | GLM-4.6Not measured | MarginNo overlap | GLM-5.165.4 |
| Coding | GLM-4.6Not measured | MarginNo overlap | GLM-5.161.3 |
| Knowledge | GLM-4.6Not measured | MarginNo overlap | GLM-5.152.3 |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)
MathA 3.819%B 33.448%Winner: GLM-5.1Δ 29.6FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3): GLM-4.6 scored 3.819%; GLM-5.1 scored 33.448%. GLM-5.1 wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)
MathA 2.128%B 12.500%Winner: GLM-5.1Δ 10.4FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4): GLM-4.6 scored 2.128%; GLM-5.1 scored 12.500%. GLM-5.1 wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | GLM-4.6 | GLM-5.1 | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | GLM-4.6Not available | GLM-5.1$1.4 input / $4.4 output | A complete price comparison is not available. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | GLM-4.6Not available | GLM-5.1Not available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | GLM-4.6Not available | GLM-5.1Not available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | GLM-4.6200K | GLM-5.1203K | GLM-5.1 lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic12 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6 | GLM-5.1 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| τ²-bench resultsSource | 76.9% | 97.7% | GLM-5.1 leads |
| 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 |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | — | 29.9% | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | — | 37.8% | Not comparable |
| Gert LabsSource | — | 60.11% | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | — | 1257 | Not comparable |
| ResearchClawBenchSource | — | 18.2% | Not comparable |
Coding6 benchmarks
Reasoning2 benchmarks
Knowledge8 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6 | GLM-5.1 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 23.0% | 40.2% | GLM-5.1 leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 63.2% | 86.8% | GLM-5.1 leads |
| AA-HLESource | 5.2% | 28.0% | GLM-5.1 leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | -31.6% | 1.9% | GLM-5.1 leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 20.8% | 24.2% | GLM-5.1 leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 66.1% | 29.4% | GLM-5.1 leads |
| GPQA-DSource | — | 86.2% | Not comparable |
| HLESource | — | 52.3% | Not comparable |
MathGLM-5.1 wins6 benchmarks
Multimodal1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6 | GLM-5.1 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Design Arena WebsiteSource | — | 1305 | Not comparable |
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6 | GLM-5.1 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | 36.7% | 76.3% | GLM-5.1 leads |
Frequently Asked Questions (2)
Which is better, GLM-4.6 or GLM-5.1?
GLM-5.1 is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 67.74 to 55.12. The biggest single separator in this matchup is FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3), where the scores are 3.819% and 33.448%.
Which is better for math, GLM-4.6 or GLM-5.1?
GLM-5.1 has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 62 versus 3.4. Inside this category, FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3) 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.