Knowledge
Like-for-like- GLM-5.2
- 60.7
- Supported · #35/183
- GPT-4.1 mini
- 34.6
- Supported · #162/183
- Basis
- BenchAlign lane · 6 vs 2 public rows
- Reading
- GLM-5.2 leads
GLM-5.2 vs GPT-4.1 mini
Updated September 14, 2026. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. They are not guarantees for a specific workload.
Decision reading
GLM-5.2 has the higher public score, 68.19 versus 33.89, and the 90% score intervals do not overlap.
1 results are shared. Category rows resting on Estimated evidence or different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.
Share or export
Which one for your work
Recommendations appear only when a shared evidence basis or an explicit operating constraint supports the call. Secondary and unsupported use cases stay disclosed below the initial list.
Chat turn cost
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
GPT-4.1 mini
GPT-4.1 mini has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Confidence: listed-rates
Cache-heavy agent loop cost
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
GPT-4.1 mini
GPT-4.1 mini has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. GLM-5.2 has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate. GPT-4.1 mini has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.
Confidence: rate-fallback
Show secondary and unsupported calls
Repository review cost
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
GPT-4.1 mini
GPT-4.1 mini has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Confidence: listed-rates
Coding work
Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks
Not enough matched evidence
GPT-4.1 mini is scored on Estimated evidence for coding, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like.
Confidence: limited
Agentic work
Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion
Not enough matched evidence
GPT-4.1 mini is scored on Estimated evidence for agentic, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like.
Confidence: limited
Long documents
Prompts that approach the documented context limit
No clear pick
The documented context windows are equal.
Confidence: documented
What is actually comparable
Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results present for only one model describe coverage, not superiority.
24 GLM-5.2 only
1 Shared
4 GPT-4.1 mini only
- Shared results
- 1
- GLM-5.2 only
- 24
- GPT-4.1 mini only
- 4
- Like-for-like categories
- 1 / 8
3 categories rest on Estimated evidence or different evidence sets. Those rows remain visible for coverage context but do not name a winner.
Category results, on a stated basis
Each row shows the public-lane category score for both models: the BenchAlign lane for agentic, coding, and knowledge, and the weighted public rows elsewhere, with the same rank each model page reports. A row is like-for-like only when both scores rest on Supported evidence or the same weighted set. Directional and not-comparable rows remain visible, but they never receive a winner.
Agentic
Directional only- GLM-5.2
- 58.5
- Supported · #29/153
- GPT-4.1 mini
- 37.1
- Estimated · #129/153
- Basis
- BenchAlign lane · 6 vs 0 public rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Coding
Directional only- GLM-5.2
- 61.0
- Supported · #19/152
- GPT-4.1 mini
- 35.5
- Estimated · #129/152
- Basis
- BenchAlign lane · 8 vs 1 public rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Instruction following
Directional only- GLM-5.2
- 89.8
- #22/123
- GPT-4.1 mini
- 44.4
- #95/123
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Reasoning
Not comparable- GLM-5.2
- 74.8
- Unranked · 2 rankable rows
- GPT-4.1 mini
- 51.3
- Unranked · 2 rankable rows
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Math
Not comparable- GLM-5.2
- 80.7
- Unranked · 4 rankable rows
- GPT-4.1 mini
- 28.5
- Unranked · 1 rankable row
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 2 vs 1 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multilingual
Not comparable- GLM-5.2
- Not ranked
- GPT-4.1 mini
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multimodal
Not comparable- GLM-5.2
- Not ranked
- GPT-4.1 mini
- 46.5
- Unranked · 1 rankable row
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
| Category | GLM-5.2 | GPT-4.1 mini | Basis | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Knowledge | 60.7Supported · #35/183 | 34.6Supported · #162/183 | Like-for-likeBenchAlign lane · 6 vs 2 public rows | GLM-5.2 leads |
| Agentic | 58.5Supported · #29/153 | 37.1Estimated · #129/153 | Directional onlyBenchAlign lane · 6 vs 0 public rows | Directional only |
| Coding | 61.0Supported · #19/152 | 35.5Estimated · #129/152 | Directional onlyBenchAlign lane · 8 vs 1 public rows | Directional only |
| Instruction following | 89.8#22/123 | 44.4#95/123 | Directional onlyProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Directional only |
| Reasoning | 74.8Unranked · 2 rankable rows | 51.3Unranked · 2 rankable rows | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Math | 80.7Unranked · 4 rankable rows | 28.5Unranked · 1 rankable row | Not comparableProvisional lane · 2 vs 1 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Multilingual | Not ranked | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Multimodal | Not ranked | 46.5Unranked · 1 rankable row | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
Ranks count the models scored in each category’s lane, so the agentic, coding, and knowledge denominators (BenchAlign) differ from the provisional-lane categories. Unranked scores sit on the lane’s scale but never name a winner. Like-for-like rows within 0.5 points read as a practical tie.
Shape of the matched evidence
Only shared public evidence is shown. Sparse evidence stays a ruled list rather than being closed into a radar shape.
Too few matched category axes support a radar. The ruled list below shows only shared benchmark results; positions use each benchmark’s normalized display scale when available.
GPQA
Knowledge
What each workload costs
Three fixed token mixes turn per-token rates into comparable decisions. Each scenario states context fit and whether cached input had to fall back to the published list-input rate.
Chat turn
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
- GLM-5.2
- $0.0036
- Fits in one request
- GPT-4.1 mini
- $0.0012
- Fits in one request
GPT-4.1 mini has the lower modeled cost
Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Repository review
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
- GLM-5.2
- $0.0832
- Fits in one request
- GPT-4.1 mini
- $0.0248
- Fits in one request
GPT-4.1 mini has the lower modeled cost
Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Cache-heavy agent loop
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
- GLM-5.2
- $0.352
- Fits in one request
- Cached input priced at the published list-input rate
- GPT-4.1 mini
- $0.104
- Fits in one request
- Cached input priced at the published list-input rate
GPT-4.1 mini has the lower modeled cost
GLM-5.2 has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate. GPT-4.1 mini has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.
Specification differences
Sourced differences are shown directly. Missing facts stay explicit instead of being inferred from a model name or family.
SpecificationGLM-5.2GPT-4.1 mini
Context window
Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.
GLM-5.2
1M
GPT-4.1 mini
1M
API model ID
GLM-5.2
Not sourced
GPT-4.1 mini
Not sourced
Cached-input rate
A missing cached-input rate falls back to the listed input rate only in the stated workload estimate.
GLM-5.2
Not published
GPT-4.1 mini
Not published
Documented inputs
GLM-5.2
Not sourced
GPT-4.1 mini
Not sourced
Documented outputs
GLM-5.2
Not sourced
GPT-4.1 mini
Not sourced
Provider availability
GLM-5.2
Not sourced
GPT-4.1 mini
Not sourced
Reasoning profile
GLM-5.2
Reasoning
GPT-4.1 mini
Non-Reasoning
Weight access
GLM-5.2
Open Weight
GPT-4.1 mini
Proprietary
License
GLM-5.2
Open Weight
GPT-4.1 mini
Proprietary
Release date
GLM-5.2
2026-06-16
GPT-4.1 mini
2025-04-14
If you already use one of these models
- Deployment change
- The models list different providers, so authentication, endpoint behavior, limits, and feature support may change.
- Quality signal
- GLM-5.2 has the higher public score, 68.19 versus 33.89, and the 90% score intervals do not overlap.
- Workload cost
- Repository review: $0.0832 vs $0.0248. Cache-heavy agent loop: $0.352 vs $0.104.
- Context tradeoff
- Both models list 1M.
Run the same representative tasks against both endpoints before changing production traffic.
Benchmark evidence
The full public result ledger is available for audit without forcing a wide desktop table onto a phone.
Browse raw public benchmark evidence29 rows
Agentic
Terminal-Bench 3.0
GLM-5.24.6%SourceGPT-4.1 mini—Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0
GLM-5.281%SourceGPT-4.1 mini—Not directly comparable
MCP Atlas
GLM-5.276.8%SourceGPT-4.1 mini—Not directly comparable
Toolathlon
GLM-5.248.2%SourceGPT-4.1 mini—Not directly comparable
ResearchClawBench
GLM-5.220.7%SourceGPT-4.1 mini—Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals)
GLM-5.267.8%SourceGPT-4.1 mini—Not directly comparable
Coding
SWE-bench Pro
GLM-5.262.1%SourceGPT-4.1 mini—Not directly comparable
NL2Repo
GLM-5.248.9%SourceGPT-4.1 mini—Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0
GLM-5.281.0%SourceGPT-4.1 mini—Not directly comparable
ProgramBench
GLM-5.263.7%SourceGPT-4.1 mini—Not directly comparable
cursorBench32
GLM-5.255.0%SourceGPT-4.1 mini—Not directly comparable
OpenHarmony Bench
GLM-5.258.4%SourceGPT-4.1 mini—Not directly comparable
LiveCodeBench (Vals)
GLM-5.269.5%SourceGPT-4.1 mini—Not directly comparable
SWE-bench (Vals)
GLM-5.282.8%SourceGPT-4.1 mini—Not directly comparable
SWE-bench Verified
GLM-5.2—GPT-4.1 mini23.6%SourceNot directly comparable
Reasoning
CritPt
GLM-5.220.9%SourceGPT-4.1 mini—Not directly comparable
Knowledge
GPQA
GLM-5.291.2%SourceGPT-4.1 mini64.2%SourceGLM-5.2 leads this result
GPQA-D
GLM-5.291.2%SourceGPT-4.1 mini—Not directly comparable
HLE
GLM-5.254.7%SourceGPT-4.1 mini—Not directly comparable
HLE w/o tools
GLM-5.240.5%SourceGPT-4.1 mini—Not directly comparable
GPQA Diamond (Vals)
GLM-5.285.6%SourceGPT-4.1 mini—Not directly comparable
MMLU-Pro (Vals)
GLM-5.286.7%SourceGPT-4.1 mini—Not directly comparable
MMLU
GLM-5.2—GPT-4.1 mini87.5%SourceNot directly comparable
Math
AIME26
GLM-5.299.2%SourceGPT-4.1 mini—Not directly comparable
HMMT Nov 2025
GLM-5.294.4%SourceGPT-4.1 mini—Not directly comparable
HMMT Feb 2026
GLM-5.292.5%SourceGPT-4.1 mini—Not directly comparable
MMAnswerBench
GLM-5.291.0%SourceGPT-4.1 mini—Not directly comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)
GLM-5.2—GPT-4.1 mini4.483%SourceNot directly comparable
Instruction following
IFEval
GLM-5.2—GPT-4.1 mini88.5%SourceNot directly comparable
Frequently asked questions
Which is better, GLM-5.2 or GPT-4.1 mini?
GLM-5.2 has the higher public score, 68.19 versus 33.89, and the 90% score intervals do not overlap. That is the clearest overall quality signal in the current public data.
Which is better for coding, GLM-5.2 or GPT-4.1 mini?
GLM-5.2 scores higher for coding on the public lane, 61 to 35.5. GPT-4.1 mini is scored on Estimated evidence for coding, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like. BenchLM does not name a winner for coding from a directional reading; read the shared benchmark rows directly and test the models on the same task set.
Which is better for agentic tasks, GLM-5.2 or GPT-4.1 mini?
GLM-5.2 scores higher for agentic tasks on the public lane, 58.5 to 37.1. GPT-4.1 mini is scored on Estimated evidence for agentic tasks, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like. BenchLM does not name a winner for agentic tasks from a directional reading; read the shared benchmark rows directly and test the models on the same task set.
Which costs less, GLM-5.2 or GPT-4.1 mini?
For the stated presets, chat costs $0.0036 on GLM-5.2 and $0.0012 on GPT-4.1 mini; repository review costs $0.0832 and $0.0248; the cache-heavy agent loop costs $0.352 and $0.104. GLM-5.2 has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate. GPT-4.1 mini has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.
Which has the larger context window, GLM-5.2 or GPT-4.1 mini?
Both models list the same context window, 1M.
Related comparisons
Last updated September 14, 2026
Watch GLM-5.2 vs GPT-4.1 mini
One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.
Read a sample issueJoin 2,000+ readers.