Model comparison
GLM-5.1 vs Mistral Medium 3.5 128B
Head-to-head evidence from 17 shared benchmark results across 5 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: GLM-5.1 #22 (Supported); Mistral Medium 3.5 128B unranked (Not scored). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. GLM-5.1 and Mistral Medium 3.5 128B share 17 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 19 results are unique to GLM-5.1; 8 to Mistral Medium 3.5 128B.
Updated July 27, 2026- Shared results
- 17
- GLM-5.1 only
- 19
- Mistral Medium 3.5 128B only
- 8
- Comparable categories
- 1 / 8
Treat this as a split decision. GLM-5.1 makes more sense if you want the cheaper token bill; Mistral Medium 3.5 128B is the better fit if coding is the priority or you need the larger 256K context window.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 17 shared benchmark results across 5 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 and Mistral Medium 3.5 128B finish on the same BenchAlign overall score, so this is less about a single winner and more about where the edge shows up. The BenchAlign headline says tie; the benchmark table is where the real choice happens.
Mistral Medium 3.5 128B is also the more expensive model on tokens at $1.50 input / $7.50 output per 1M tokens, versus $1.40 input / $4.40 output per 1M tokens for GLM-5.1. Mistral Medium 3.5 128B gives you the larger context window at 256K, 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 | Mistral Medium 3.5 128B |
|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | GLM-5.161.3 | Margin→ 16.3 | Mistral Medium 3.5 128B77.6 |
| Agentic | GLM-5.165.4 | MarginNo overlap | Mistral Medium 3.5 128BNot measured |
| Knowledge | GLM-5.152.3 | MarginNo overlap | Mistral Medium 3.5 128BNot measured |
| Math | GLM-5.162.0 | MarginNo overlap | Mistral Medium 3.5 128BNot measured |
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | GLM-5.1 | Mistral Medium 3.5 128B | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | GLM-5.1$1.4 input / $4.4 output | Mistral Medium 3.5 128B$1.5 input / $7.5 output | GLM-5.1 has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | GLM-5.1Not available | Mistral Medium 3.5 128BNot available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | GLM-5.1Not available | Mistral Medium 3.5 128BNot available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | GLM-5.1203K | Mistral Medium 3.5 128B256K | Mistral Medium 3.5 128B lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic17 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | Mistral Medium 3.5 128B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 63.5% | — | Not comparable |
| BrowseCompSource | 68% | — | Not comparable |
| τ³-bench resultsSource | 70.6% | 91.4% | Mistral Medium 3.5 128B leads |
| MCP AtlasSource | 71.8% | — | Not comparable |
| CyberGymSource | 68.7% | — | Not comparable |
| Claw-EvalSource | 62.3% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | 29.9% | 19.0% | GLM-5.1 leads |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | 97.7% | 94.2% | GLM-5.1 leads |
| GDPval-AASource | 37.8% | 21.6% | GLM-5.1 leads |
| Gert LabsSource | 60.11% | 39.10% | GLM-5.1 leads |
| GDPval-AASource | 1256 | 933 | GLM-5.1 leads |
| ResearchClawBenchSource | 18.2% | — | Not comparable |
| AA EnterpriseOps-GymSource | — | 33.7% | Not comparable |
| AA Harvey LABSource | — | 69.1% | Not comparable |
| terminalBenchHardSource | — | 33.3% | Not comparable |
| AA BriefcaseSource | — | 516 | Not comparable |
| AA Tau3 BankingSource | — | 14.4% | Not comparable |
CodingMistral Medium 3.5 128B wins7 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | Mistral Medium 3.5 128B | 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% | 46.9% | GLM-5.1 leads |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 43.8% | 39.6% | GLM-5.1 leads |
| SWE-bench VerifiedSource | — | 77.6% | Not comparable |
Reasoning2 benchmarks
Knowledge9 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | Mistral Medium 3.5 128B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQA-DSource | 86.2% | — | Not comparable |
| HLESource | 52.3% | — | Not comparable |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 40.2% | 29.9% | GLM-5.1 leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 86.8% | 74.8% | GLM-5.1 leads |
| AA-HLESource | 28.0% | 12.8% | GLM-5.1 leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | 1.9% | -36.3% | GLM-5.1 leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 24.2% | 25.1% | Mistral Medium 3.5 128B leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 29.4% | 82.0% | GLM-5.1 leads |
| AA Openness IndexSource | — | 33.3% | Not comparable |
Math6 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | Mistral Medium 3.5 128B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AIME26Source | 95.3% | — | Not comparable |
| 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 |
Multimodal2 benchmarks
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | Mistral Medium 3.5 128B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | 76.3% | 68.8% | GLM-5.1 leads |
Frequently Asked Questions (2)
Which is better, GLM-5.1 or Mistral Medium 3.5 128B?
GLM-5.1 and Mistral Medium 3.5 128B are tied on the BenchAlign overall score, so the right pick depends on which category matters most for your use case.
Which is better for coding, GLM-5.1 or Mistral Medium 3.5 128B?
Mistral Medium 3.5 128B has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 77.6 versus 61.3. Inside this category, AA Coding Index 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
Know when it’s worth switching models
The model to choose, the cheaper alternative, and the release we would wait on.
One email each week. Unsubscribe anytime.