Head-to-head comparison across 1benchmark categories. Overall scores shown here use BenchLM's provisional ranking lane.
GLM-5.1
83
Grok Code Fast 1
40
Verified leaderboard positions: GLM-5.1 #21 · Grok Code Fast 1 unranked
Pick GLM-5.1 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Grok Code Fast 1 only becomes the better choice if coding is the priority or you want the cheaper token bill.
Coding
+9.9 difference
GLM-5.1
Grok Code Fast 1
$1.4 / $4.4
$0.2 / $1.5
N/A
172 t/s
N/A
2.81s
203K
256K
Pick GLM-5.1 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Grok Code Fast 1 only becomes the better choice if coding is the priority or you want the cheaper token bill.
GLM-5.1 is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 83 to 40. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
GLM-5.1 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $1.40 input / $4.40 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.20 input / $1.50 output per 1M tokens for Grok Code Fast 1. That is roughly 2.9x on output cost alone. GLM-5.1 is the reasoning model in the pair, while Grok Code Fast 1 is not. That usually helps on harder chain-of-thought-heavy tests, but it can also mean more latency and more token spend in real use. Grok Code Fast 1 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, 83 to 40.
Grok Code Fast 1 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 70.8 versus 60.9. GLM-5.1 stays close enough that the answer can still flip depending on your workload.
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.