Model comparison
GLM-5.1 vs LFM2.5-8B-A1B
Head-to-head evidence from 13 shared benchmark results across 6 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Verified leaderboard positions: GLM-5.1 #12; LFM2.5-8B-A1B unranked
BenchAlign evidence: GLM-5.1 supported; LFM2.5-8B-A1B estimated. Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. GLM-5.1 and LFM2.5-8B-A1B share 13 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 24 results are unique to GLM-5.1; 5 to LFM2.5-8B-A1B.
Updated July 16, 2026- Shared results
- 13
- GLM-5.1 only
- 24
- LFM2.5-8B-A1B only
- 5
- Comparable categories
- 1 / 8
Pick GLM-5.1 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. LFM2.5-8B-A1B only becomes the better choice if you want the cheaper token bill.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 13 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 provisional aggregate, 67 to 37. 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 50. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is AIME26, 95.3% to 50.0%.
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 LFM2.5-8B-A1B. That is roughly Infinityx on output cost alone. GLM-5.1 gives you the larger context window at 203K, compared with 128K for LFM2.5-8B-A1B.
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 | LFM2.5-8B-A1B |
|---|---|---|---|
| Math | GLM-5.162.0 | Margin← 12.0 | LFM2.5-8B-A1B50.0 |
| Agentic | GLM-5.165.4 | MarginNo overlap | LFM2.5-8B-A1BNot measured |
| Coding | GLM-5.161.3 | MarginNo overlap | LFM2.5-8B-A1BNot measured |
| Knowledge | GLM-5.152.3 | MarginNo overlap | LFM2.5-8B-A1BNot measured |
| Inst. Following | GLM-5.1Not measured | MarginNo overlap | LFM2.5-8B-A1B68.8 |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
AIME26
MathA 95.3%B 50.0%Winner: GLM-5.1Δ 45.3AIME26: GLM-5.1 scored 95.3%; LFM2.5-8B-A1B scored 50.0%. 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-5.1 | LFM2.5-8B-A1B | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | GLM-5.1$1.4 input / $4.4 output | LFM2.5-8B-A1B$0 input / $0 output | LFM2.5-8B-A1B has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | GLM-5.1Not available | LFM2.5-8B-A1BNot available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | GLM-5.1Not available | LFM2.5-8B-A1BNot available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | GLM-5.1203K | LFM2.5-8B-A1B128K | GLM-5.1 lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic13 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | LFM2.5-8B-A1B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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 |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | 97.7% | 16.1% | GLM-5.1 leads |
| GDPval-AASource | 37.8% | — | Not comparable |
| Gert LabsSource | 60.11% | — | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | 1257 | — | Not comparable |
| ResearchClawBenchSource | 18.2% | — | Not comparable |
| BFCL v4Source | — | 49.7% | Not comparable |
Coding7 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | LFM2.5-8B-A1B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench ProSource | 58.4% | — | Not comparable |
| 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% | 4.5% | GLM-5.1 leads |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 43.8% | 7.8% | GLM-5.1 leads |
Reasoning2 benchmarks
Knowledge8 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | LFM2.5-8B-A1B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQA-DSource | 86.2% | — | Not comparable |
| HLESource | 52.3% | — | Not comparable |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 40.2% | 8.3% | GLM-5.1 leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 86.8% | 51.3% | GLM-5.1 leads |
| AA-HLESource | 28.0% | 6.9% | GLM-5.1 leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | 1.9% | -33.3% | GLM-5.1 leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 24.2% | 9.4% | GLM-5.1 leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 29.4% | 47.0% | GLM-5.1 leads |
MathGLM-5.1 wins8 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | LFM2.5-8B-A1B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AIME26Source | 95.3% | 50.0% | GLM-5.1 leads |
| HMMT Nov 2025Source | 94.0% | — | Not comparable |
| HMMT Feb 2026Source | 82.6% | — | Not comparable |
| MMAnswerBenchSource | 83.8% | — | Not comparable |
| FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source | 33.448% | — | Not comparable |
| FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source | 12.500% | — | Not comparable |
| MATH-500Source | — | 88.8% | Not comparable |
| AIME 2025Source | — | 42.5% | Not comparable |
Multimodal1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | LFM2.5-8B-A1B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Design Arena WebsiteSource | 1312 | — | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (2)
Which is better, GLM-5.1 or LFM2.5-8B-A1B?
GLM-5.1 is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 67 to 37. The biggest single separator in this matchup is AIME26, where the scores are 95.3% and 50.0%.
Which is better for math, GLM-5.1 or LFM2.5-8B-A1B?
GLM-5.1 has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 62 versus 50. Inside this category, AIME26 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.