Head-to-head comparison across 2benchmark categories. Overall scores shown here use BenchLM's provisional ranking lane.
GLM-5.1
83
Laguna M.1
46
Verified leaderboard positions: GLM-5.1 #21 · Laguna M.1 unranked
Pick GLM-5.1 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Laguna M.1 only becomes the better choice if you want the cheaper token bill.
Agentic
+24.6 difference
Coding
+4.5 difference
GLM-5.1
Laguna M.1
$1.4 / $4.4
$0 / $0
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
203K
131K
Pick GLM-5.1 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Laguna M.1 only becomes the better choice if you want the cheaper token bill.
GLM-5.1 is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 83 to 46. 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 agentic, where it averages 65.3 against 40.7. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is Terminal-Bench 2.0, 63.5% to 40.7%.
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 Laguna M.1. That is roughly Infinityx on output cost alone. GLM-5.1 gives you the larger context window at 203K, compared with 131K for Laguna M.1.
GLM-5.1 is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 83 to 46. The biggest single separator in this matchup is Terminal-Bench 2.0, where the scores are 63.5% and 40.7%.
GLM-5.1 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 60.9 versus 56.4. Inside this category, SWE-bench Pro is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
GLM-5.1 has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 65.3 versus 40.7. Inside this category, Terminal-Bench 2.0 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.