Head-to-head comparison across 1benchmark categories. Overall scores shown here use BenchLM's provisional ranking lane.
GLM-5.1
82
Mistral Medium 3.5 128B
78
Verified leaderboard positions: GLM-5.1 #29 · Mistral Medium 3.5 128B unranked
Pick GLM-5.1 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Mistral Medium 3.5 128B only becomes the better choice if coding is the priority or you need the larger 256K context window.
Coding
+16.7 difference
GLM-5.1
Mistral Medium 3.5 128B
$1.4 / $4.4
$1.5 / $7.5
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
203K
256K
Pick GLM-5.1 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Mistral Medium 3.5 128B only becomes the better choice if coding is the priority or you need the larger 256K context window.
GLM-5.1 is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 82 to 78. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
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.
GLM-5.1 is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 82 to 78.
Mistral Medium 3.5 128B has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 77.6 versus 60.9. Inside this category, Terminal-Bench Hard 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.