Model comparison
GLM-5.1 vs Inkling
Head-to-head evidence from 7 shared benchmark results across 4 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Verified leaderboard positions: GLM-5.1 #12; Inkling #17
BenchAlign evidence: GLM-5.1 supported; Inkling not scored. Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. GLM-5.1 and Inkling share 7 comparable benchmark results. 4 of 8 categories are comparable. 30 results are unique to GLM-5.1; 9 to Inkling.
Updated July 15, 2026- Shared results
- 7
- GLM-5.1 only
- 30
- Inkling only
- 9
- Comparable categories
- 4 / 8
Pick Inkling if you want the stronger benchmark profile. GLM-5.1 only becomes the better choice if knowledge is the priority or you want the cheaper token bill.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 7 shared benchmark results across 4 evidence categories; 4 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.
Why this result
Inkling has the cleaner provisional overall profile here, landing at 69 versus 67. It is a real lead, but still close enough that category-level strengths matter more than the headline number.
Inkling's sharpest advantage is in mathematics, where it averages 97.1 against 62. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is BrowseComp, 68% to 77.1%. GLM-5.1 does hit back in knowledge, so the answer changes if that is the part of the workload you care about most.
Inkling is also the more expensive model on tokens at $1.87 input / $4.68 output per 1M tokens, versus $1.40 input / $4.40 output per 1M tokens for GLM-5.1. GLM-5.1 is the reasoning model in the pair, while Inkling 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. Inkling 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 | GLM-5.1 | Δ | Inkling |
|---|---|---|---|
| Math | GLM-5.162.0 | Margin→ 35.1 | Inkling97.1 |
| Coding | GLM-5.161.3 | Margin→ 7.3 | Inkling68.6 |
| Agentic | GLM-5.165.4 | Margin→ 4.0 | Inkling69.4 |
| Knowledge | GLM-5.152.3 | Margin← 0.6 | Inkling51.7 |
| Multimodal | GLM-5.1Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Inkling76.5 |
| Inst. Following | GLM-5.1Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Inkling79.8 |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
BrowseComp
AgenticA 68%B 77.1%Winner: InklingΔ 9.1BrowseComp: GLM-5.1 scored 68%; Inkling scored 77.1%. Inkling wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
HLE
KnowledgeA 52.3%B 46%Winner: GLM-5.1Δ 6.3HLE: GLM-5.1 scored 52.3%; Inkling scored 46%. GLM-5.1 wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
SWE-bench Pro
CodingA 58.4%B 54.3%Winner: GLM-5.1Δ 4.1SWE-bench Pro: GLM-5.1 scored 58.4%; Inkling scored 54.3%. GLM-5.1 wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
AIME26
MathA 95.3%B 97.1%Winner: InklingΔ 1.8AIME26: GLM-5.1 scored 95.3%; Inkling scored 97.1%. Inkling wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
Terminal-Bench 2.0
AgenticA 63.5%B 63.8%Winner: InklingΔ 0.3Terminal-Bench 2.0: GLM-5.1 scored 63.5%; Inkling scored 63.8%. Inkling wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | GLM-5.1 | Inkling | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | GLM-5.1$1.4 input / $4.4 output | Inkling$1.87 input / $4.68 output | GLM-5.1 has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | GLM-5.1Not available | InklingNot available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | GLM-5.1Not available | InklingNot available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | GLM-5.1203K | Inkling1M | Inkling lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
AgenticInkling wins13 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | Inkling | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 63.5% | 63.8% | Inkling leads |
| BrowseCompSource | 68% | 77.1% | Inkling leads |
| τ³-bench resultsSource | 70.6% | — | Not comparable |
| MCP AtlasSource | 71.8% | 74.1% | Inkling leads |
| CyberGymSource | 68.7% | — | Not comparable |
| Claw-EvalSource | 62.3% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | 29.9% | — | Not comparable |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | 97.7% | — | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | 37.8% | — | Not comparable |
| Gert LabsSource | 60.11% | — | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | 1257 | — | Not comparable |
| ResearchClawBenchSource | 18.2% | — | Not comparable |
| Design Arena Agentic Web DevSource | — | 1258 | Not comparable |
CodingInkling wins9 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | Inkling | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench ProSource | 58.4% | 54.3% | GLM-5.1 leads |
| NL2RepoSource | 42.7% | — | Not comparable |
| SWE-RebenchSource | 62.7% | — | Not comparable |
| Vibe Code BenchSource | 31.46% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Coding IndexSource | 55.8% | — | Not comparable |
| Terminal-Bench HardSource | 43.2% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 43.8% | — | Not comparable |
| SWE-bench VerifiedSource | — | 77.6% | Not comparable |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | — | 63.8% | Not comparable |
Reasoning2 benchmarks
KnowledgeGLM-5.1 wins10 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | Inkling | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQA-DSource | 86.2% | 87.9% | Inkling leads |
| HLESource | 52.3% | 46% | GLM-5.1 leads |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 40.2% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 86.8% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-HLESource | 28.0% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | 1.9% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 24.2% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 29.4% | — | Not comparable |
| GPQASource | — | 87.9% | Not comparable |
| HLE w/o toolsSource | — | 30% | Not comparable |
MathInkling wins6 benchmarks
Multimodal4 benchmarks
Frequently Asked Questions (5)
Which is better, GLM-5.1 or Inkling?
Inkling is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 69 to 67. The biggest single separator in this matchup is BrowseComp, where the scores are 68% and 77.1%.
Which is better for knowledge tasks, GLM-5.1 or Inkling?
GLM-5.1 has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 52.3 versus 51.7. Inside this category, HLE is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for coding, GLM-5.1 or Inkling?
Inkling has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 68.6 versus 61.3. Inside this category, SWE-bench Pro is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for math, GLM-5.1 or Inkling?
Inkling has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 97.1 versus 62. Inside this category, AIME26 is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for agentic tasks, GLM-5.1 or Inkling?
Inkling has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 69.4 versus 65.4. Inside this category, BrowseComp 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
The AI models change fast. We track them for you.
A weekly brief for engineers and researchers covering new models, ranking shifts, and pricing changes.
Free. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.