Model comparison
GLM-5.1 vs Soofi S 30B-A3B
Head-to-head evidence from 1 shared benchmark result across 1 category. Overall scores shown here use BenchLM's provisional ranking lane.
Verified leaderboard positions: GLM-5.1 #13; Soofi S 30B-A3B unranked
Evidence parity. GLM-5.1 and Soofi S 30B-A3B share 1 comparable benchmark result. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 36 results are unique to GLM-5.1; 7 to Soofi S 30B-A3B.
Updated July 15, 2026- Shared results
- 1
- GLM-5.1 only
- 36
- Soofi S 30B-A3B only
- 7
- Comparable categories
- 1 / 8
Pick GLM-5.1 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Soofi S 30B-A3B only becomes the better choice if you want the cheaper token bill or you need the larger 1M context window.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 1 shared benchmark result across 1 evidence category; 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, 68 to 45. 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 knowledge, where it averages 52.3 against 49.9.
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 Soofi S 30B-A3B. That is roughly Infinityx on output cost alone. GLM-5.1 is the reasoning model in the pair, while Soofi S 30B-A3B 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. Soofi S 30B-A3B gives you the larger context window at 1M, 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 | Soofi S 30B-A3B |
|---|---|---|---|
| Knowledge | GLM-5.152.3 | Margin← 2.4 | Soofi S 30B-A3B49.9 |
| Agentic | GLM-5.165.4 | MarginNo overlap | Soofi S 30B-A3BNot measured |
| Coding | GLM-5.160.2 | MarginNo overlap | Soofi S 30B-A3BNot measured |
| Math | GLM-5.162.0 | MarginNo overlap | Soofi S 30B-A3BNot measured |
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | GLM-5.1 | Soofi S 30B-A3B | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | GLM-5.1$1.4 input / $4.4 output | Soofi S 30B-A3B$0 input / $0 output | Soofi S 30B-A3B has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | GLM-5.1Not available | Soofi S 30B-A3BNot available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | GLM-5.1Not available | Soofi S 30B-A3BNot available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | GLM-5.1203K | Soofi S 30B-A3B1M | Soofi S 30B-A3B lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic12 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | Soofi S 30B-A3B | 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% | — | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | 37.8% | — | Not comparable |
| Gert LabsSource | 60.11% | — | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | 1257 | — | Not comparable |
| ResearchClawBenchSource | 18.2% | — | Not comparable |
Coding8 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | Soofi S 30B-A3B | 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% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 43.8% | — | Not comparable |
| HumanEvalSource | — | 73.8% | Not comparable |
Reasoning4 benchmarks
KnowledgeGLM-5.1 wins11 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | Soofi S 30B-A3B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQA-DSource | 86.2% | 43.4% | GLM-5.1 leads |
| HLESource | 52.3% | — | Not comparable |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 40.2% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 86.8% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-HLESource | 28.0% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | 1.9% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 24.2% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 29.4% | — | Not comparable |
| GPQASource | — | 43.4% | Not comparable |
| MMLU-ProSource | — | 51.4% | Not comparable |
| AGIEvalSource | — | 66.9% | Not comparable |
Math7 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | Soofi S 30B-A3B | 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 |
| GSM8KSource | — | 86.1% | Not comparable |
Multimodal1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | Soofi S 30B-A3B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Design Arena WebsiteSource | 1312 | — | Not comparable |
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | Soofi S 30B-A3B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | 76.3% | — | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (2)
Which is better, GLM-5.1 or Soofi S 30B-A3B?
GLM-5.1 is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 68 to 45.
Which is better for knowledge tasks, GLM-5.1 or Soofi S 30B-A3B?
GLM-5.1 has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 52.3 versus 49.9. Inside this category, GPQA-D 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.