Skip to main content
BenchLM
Advertise

Model comparison

GLM-5-Turbo vs GPT-5.4

Updated July 29, 2026. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. They are not guarantees for a specific workload.

GLM-5-Turbo

Z.AI

65.9/100

Supported · Public rank #29

90% interval 56.1–75.7

GPT-5.4

OpenAI

73.3/100

Supported · Public rank #10

90% interval 70.3–76.2

GPT-5.4 has the higher public score estimate, 73.25 versus 65.92, but the 90% score intervals overlap. Treat that as a lead, not a settled winner.

1 results are shared. Category rows based on different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.

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.

  • Long documents

    Prompts that approach the documented context limit

    GPT-5.4

    GPT-5.4 has the larger documented context window.

    Confidence: documented

  • Chat turn cost

    1K fresh input + 500 output tokens

    GLM-5-Turbo

    GLM-5-Turbo has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.

    Confidence: listed-rates

Show secondary and unsupported calls

  • Repository review cost

    50K fresh input + 3K output tokens

    GLM-5-Turbo

    GLM-5-Turbo 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

    No shared weighted benchmark basis supports a winner.

    Confidence: limited

  • Agentic work

    Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion

    Not enough matched evidence

    No shared weighted benchmark basis supports a winner.

    Confidence: limited

  • Cache-heavy agent loop cost

    200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens

    Not enough matched evidence

    The page does not recommend a cost winner because at least one model cannot fit the stated workload in one request. GLM-5-Turbo does not fit this workload in one request. GLM-5-Turbo has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.

    Confidence: rate-fallback

What is actually comparable

Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results present for only one model describe coverage, not superiority.

Shared results
1
GLM-5-Turbo only
0
GPT-5.4 only
36
Like-for-like categories
0 / 8

Category results, on a stated basis

Each row states whether both averages use the same weighted benchmark set. Directional and not-comparable rows remain visible, but they never receive a winner in this template.

Agentic

Not comparable
GLM-5-Turbo
Not measured
GPT-5.4
77.2
Weighted basis
0 vs 3 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Coding

Not comparable
GLM-5-Turbo
Not measured
GPT-5.4
57.7
Weighted basis
0 vs 1 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Reasoning

Not comparable
GLM-5-Turbo
Not measured
GPT-5.4
74.0
Weighted basis
0 vs 1 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Knowledge

Not comparable
GLM-5-Turbo
Not measured
GPT-5.4
57.6
Weighted basis
0 vs 2 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Math

Not comparable
GLM-5-Turbo
Not measured
GPT-5.4
42.5
Weighted basis
0 vs 2 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multilingual

Not comparable
GLM-5-Turbo
Not measured
GPT-5.4
Not measured
Weighted basis
0 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multimodal

Not comparable
GLM-5-Turbo
Not measured
GPT-5.4
73.2
Weighted basis
0 vs 3 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Instruction following

Not comparable
GLM-5-Turbo
Not measured
GPT-5.4
Not measured
Weighted basis
0 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

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.

A shared-evidence shape is not available.

BenchLM does not draw a radar or infer missing axes when the matched evidence is too sparse.

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-Turbo
$0.0032
Fits in one request
GPT-5.4
$0.01
Fits in one request

GLM-5-Turbo has the lower modeled cost

Costs use the listed standard API rates.

Repository review

50K fresh input + 3K output tokens

GLM-5-Turbo
$0.072
Fits in one request
GPT-5.4
$0.17
Fits in one request

GLM-5-Turbo 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-Turbo
$0.304
Does not fit in one request
Cached input priced at the published list-input rate
GPT-5.4
$0.25
Fits in one request

GLM-5-Turbo does not fit this workload in one request. GLM-5-Turbo 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.

Context window

Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.

GLM-5-Turbo

200K

GPT-5.4

1.05M

OpenAI pricing

Cached-input rate

A missing cached-input rate falls back to the listed input rate only in the stated workload estimate.

GLM-5-Turbo

Not published

GPT-5.4

$0.25 per 1M cached input tokens

OpenAI pricing

Documented inputs

GLM-5-Turbo

Not sourced

GPT-5.4

Not sourced

Documented outputs

GLM-5-Turbo

Not sourced

GPT-5.4

Not sourced

Provider availability

GLM-5-Turbo

Not sourced

GPT-5.4

Not sourced

Reasoning profile

GLM-5-Turbo

Reasoning

GPT-5.4

Reasoning

Weight access

GLM-5-Turbo

Proprietary

GPT-5.4

Proprietary

License

GLM-5-Turbo

Proprietary

GPT-5.4

Proprietary

Release date

GLM-5-Turbo

2026-03-01

GPT-5.4

2026-03-05

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
GPT-5.4 has the higher public score estimate, 73.25 versus 65.92, but the 90% score intervals overlap.
Workload cost
Repository review: $0.072 vs $0.17. Cache-heavy agent loop: $0.304 vs $0.25.
Context tradeoff
GPT-5.4 has the larger documented window (1.05M).

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 evidence37 rows

Agentic

  • Claw-Eval

    Shared source
    GLM-5-Turbo55.8%
    GPT-5.460.3%

    GPT-5.4 leads this result

  • Terminal-Bench 2.0

    GLM-5-Turbo—
    GPT-5.475.1%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • CyberGym

    GLM-5-Turbo—
    GPT-5.479.0%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • BrowseComp

    GLM-5-Turbo—
    GPT-5.482.7%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • OSWorld-Verified

    GLM-5-Turbo—
    GPT-5.475%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • MCP Atlas

    GLM-5-Turbo—
    GPT-5.470.6%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • Toolathlon

    GLM-5-Turbo—
    GPT-5.454.6%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • τ²-bench results

    GLM-5-Turbo—
    GPT-5.498.9%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • DeepSearchQA

    GLM-5-Turbo—
    GPT-5.473.6%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • Gert Labs

    GLM-5-Turbo—
    GPT-5.464.89%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • ResearchClawBench

    GLM-5-Turbo—
    GPT-5.415.3%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • JobBench

    GLM-5-Turbo—
    GPT-5.438.9%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • ExploitGym

    GLM-5-Turbo—
    GPT-5.46.0%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Coding

  • LiveCodeBench Pro

    GLM-5-Turbo—
    GPT-5.487.5%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • SWE-bench Pro

    GLM-5-Turbo—
    GPT-5.457.7%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • React Native Evals

    GLM-5-Turbo—
    GPT-5.485.3%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • Vibe Code Bench

    GLM-5-Turbo—
    GPT-5.467.42%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Reasoning

  • ARC-AGI-2

    GLM-5-Turbo—
    GPT-5.474.0%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • ARC-AGI-3

    GLM-5-Turbo—
    GPT-5.40.2%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Knowledge

  • GPQA

    GLM-5-Turbo—
    GPT-5.492.8%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • HLE

    GLM-5-Turbo—
    GPT-5.452.1%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • HLE w/o tools

    GLM-5-Turbo—
    GPT-5.439.8%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • GPQA-D

    GLM-5-Turbo—
    GPT-5.492.8%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • HealthBench Hard

    GLM-5-Turbo—
    GPT-5.440.1%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • MedXpertQA (Text)

    GLM-5-Turbo—
    GPT-5.459.6%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • HealthBench Professional

    GLM-5-Turbo—
    GPT-5.448.1%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Math

  • FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)

    GLM-5-Turbo—
    GPT-5.447.600%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)

    GLM-5-Turbo—
    GPT-5.427.100%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Multimodal

  • MMMU-Pro

    GLM-5-Turbo—
    GPT-5.481.2%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • OfficeQA Pro

    GLM-5-Turbo—
    GPT-5.453.2%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • MMMU-Pro w/ Python

    GLM-5-Turbo—
    GPT-5.482.1%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • CharXiv

    GLM-5-Turbo—
    GPT-5.482.8%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • ERQA

    GLM-5-Turbo—
    GPT-5.465.4%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • SimpleVQA

    GLM-5-Turbo—
    GPT-5.461.1%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • ScreenSpot Pro

    GLM-5-Turbo—
    GPT-5.485.4%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • ZeroBench

    GLM-5-Turbo—
    GPT-5.441.0%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • MedXpertQA (MM)

    GLM-5-Turbo—
    GPT-5.477.1%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Frequently asked questions

Which is better, GLM-5-Turbo or GPT-5.4?

GPT-5.4 has the higher public score estimate, 73.25 versus 65.92, but the 90% score intervals overlap. The higher estimate is not a decisive winner because the uncertainty ranges overlap.

Which is better for coding, GLM-5-Turbo or GPT-5.4?

The published evidence does not provide a shared weighted coding basis for both models, so BenchLM does not name a coding winner.

Which is better for agentic tasks, GLM-5-Turbo or GPT-5.4?

The published evidence does not provide a shared weighted agentic tasks basis for both models, so BenchLM does not name a agentic tasks winner.

Which costs less, GLM-5-Turbo or GPT-5.4?

For the stated presets, chat costs $0.0032 on GLM-5-Turbo and $0.01 on GPT-5.4; repository review costs $0.072 and $0.17; the cache-heavy agent loop costs $0.304 and $0.25. GLM-5-Turbo does not fit this workload in one request. GLM-5-Turbo has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.

Which has the larger context window, GLM-5-Turbo or GPT-5.4?

GPT-5.4 has the larger documented context window: 1.05M, compared with 200K.

Related comparisons

Compare API pricing Read the methodology Open the model selector

Last updated July 29, 2026

Watch GLM-5-Turbo vs GPT-5.4

One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.

Read a sample issue

Join 2,000+ readers.