Head-to-head comparison across 2benchmark categories. Overall scores shown here use BenchLM's provisional ranking lane.
GLM-5
67
GPT-4.1 nano
27
Verified leaderboard positions: GLM-5 #17 · GPT-4.1 nano unranked
Pick GLM-5 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. GPT-4.1 nano only becomes the better choice if you want the cheaper token bill or you need the larger 1M context window.
Knowledge
+20.4 difference
Inst. Following
+9.4 difference
GLM-5
GPT-4.1 nano
$1 / $3.2
$0.1 / $0.4
74 t/s
181 t/s
1.64s
0.63s
200K
1M
Pick GLM-5 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. GPT-4.1 nano only becomes the better choice if you want the cheaper token bill or you need the larger 1M context window.
GLM-5 is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 67 to 27. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
GLM-5's sharpest advantage is in knowledge, where it averages 70.7 against 50.3. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is GPQA, 86% to 50.3%.
GLM-5 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $1.00 input / $3.20 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.10 input / $0.40 output per 1M tokens for GPT-4.1 nano. That is roughly 8.0x on output cost alone. GPT-4.1 nano gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 200K for GLM-5.
GLM-5 is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 67 to 27. The biggest single separator in this matchup is GPQA, where the scores are 86% and 50.3%.
GLM-5 has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 70.7 versus 50.3. Inside this category, GPQA is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
GLM-5 has the edge for instruction following in this comparison, averaging 92.6 versus 83.2. Inside this category, IFEval is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
For engineers, researchers, and the plain curious — a weekly brief on new models, ranking shifts, and pricing changes.
Free. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.