GLM-5.1 vs Ling 2.6 Flash

Pick GLM-5.1 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Ling 2.6 Flash only becomes the better choice if knowledge is the priority or you want the cheaper token bill.

GLM-5.1 is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 84 to 44. 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 coding, where it averages 60.9 against 27. Ling 2.6 Flash does hit back in knowledge, so the answer changes if that is the part of the workload you care about most.

GLM-5.1 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $1.40 input / $4.40 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.10 input / $0.30 output per 1M tokens for Ling 2.6 Flash. That is roughly 14.7x on output cost alone. GLM-5.1 is the reasoning model in the pair, while Ling 2.6 Flash 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. Ling 2.6 Flash gives you the larger context window at 262K, compared with 203K for GLM-5.1.