Model comparison
GLM-5 vs GPT-4o
Head-to-head evidence from 13 shared benchmark results across 7 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: GLM-5 #28 (Supported); GPT-4o #165 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. GLM-5 and GPT-4o share 13 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 36 results are unique to GLM-5; 0 to GPT-4o.
Updated July 20, 2026- Shared results
- 13
- GLM-5 only
- 36
- GPT-4o only
- 0
- Comparable categories
- 1 / 8
Pick GLM-5 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. GPT-4o only becomes the better choice if its workflow or ecosystem matters more than the raw scoreboard.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 13 shared benchmark results across 7 evidence categories; 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 is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 66.06 to 41.49. 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 mathematics, where it averages 56.3 against 0.3. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3), 16.434% to 0.345%.
GPT-4o is also the more expensive model on tokens at $2.50 input / $10.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $1.00 input / $3.20 output per 1M tokens for GLM-5. That is roughly 3.1x on output cost alone. GLM-5 gives you the larger context window at 200K, compared with 128K for GPT-4o.
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 | Δ | GPT-4o |
|---|---|---|---|
| Math | GLM-556.3 | Margin← 56.0 | GPT-4o0.3 |
| Agentic | GLM-556.2 | MarginNo overlap | GPT-4oNot measured |
| Coding | GLM-566.3 | MarginNo overlap | GPT-4oNot measured |
| Reasoning | GLM-560.8 | MarginNo overlap | GPT-4oNot measured |
| Knowledge | GLM-566.4 | MarginNo overlap | GPT-4oNot measured |
| Multilingual | GLM-583.1 | MarginNo overlap | GPT-4oNot measured |
| Inst. Following | GLM-592.6 | MarginNo overlap | GPT-4oNot measured |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)
MathA 16.434%B 0.345%Winner: GLM-5Δ 16.1FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3): GLM-5 scored 16.434%; GPT-4o scored 0.345%. GLM-5 wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | GLM-5 | GPT-4o | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | GLM-5$1 input / $3.2 output | GPT-4o$2.5 input / $10 output | GLM-5 has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | GLM-574 tok/s | GPT-4o131 tok/s | GPT-4o has the higher measured throughput. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | GLM-51.64 s | GPT-4o0.81 s | GPT-4o reaches the first token sooner. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | GLM-5200K | GPT-4o128K | GLM-5 lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic13 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GLM-5 | GPT-4o | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 56.2% | — | Not comparable |
| Claw-EvalSource | 57.7% | — | Not comparable |
| QwenClawBenchSource | 54.1% | — | Not comparable |
| τ³-bench resultsSource | 65.6% | — | Not comparable |
| DeepPlanningSource | 14.6% | — | Not comparable |
| ToolathlonSource | 38% | — | Not comparable |
| MCP AtlasSource | 31.1% | — | Not comparable |
| MCP-TasksSource | 60.8% | — | Not comparable |
| WideResearchSource | 69.8% | — | Not comparable |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | 98.2% | 25.1% | GLM-5 leads |
| CyberGymSource | 43.2% | — | Not comparable |
| APEX-Agents-AASource | 14.5% | — | Not comparable |
| Gert LabsSource | 50.99% | — | Not comparable |
Coding7 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GLM-5 | GPT-4o | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench VerifiedSource | 77.8% | — | Not comparable |
| SWE-bench Verified*Source | 72.8% | — | Not comparable |
| SWE-bench ProSource | 55.1% | — | Not comparable |
| SWE MultilingualSource | 73.3% | — | Not comparable |
| SWE-RebenchSource | 62.8% | — | Not comparable |
| React Native EvalsSource | 74.8% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 46.2% | 33.3% | GLM-5 leads |
Reasoning4 benchmarks
Knowledge12 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GLM-5 | GPT-4o | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQASource | 86% | — | Not comparable |
| GPQA-DSource | 86.0% | — | Not comparable |
| SuperGPQASource | 66.8% | — | Not comparable |
| MMLU-ProSource | 85.7% | — | Not comparable |
| MMLU-Pro (Arcee)Source | 85.8% | — | Not comparable |
| HLESource | 50.4% | — | Not comparable |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 39.5% | 11.2% | GLM-5 leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 82.0% | 54.3% | GLM-5 leads |
| AA-HLESource | 27.2% | 3.3% | GLM-5 leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | 2.0% | -10.7% | GLM-5 leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 26.9% | 19.7% | GLM-5 leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 34.0% | 37.9% | GLM-5 leads |
MathGLM-5 wins8 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GLM-5 | GPT-4o | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AIME26Source | 95.8% | — | Not comparable |
| AIME25 (Arcee)Source | 93.3% | — | Not comparable |
| HMMT Feb 2025Source | 97.5% | — | Not comparable |
| HMMT Nov 2025Source | 96.9% | — | Not comparable |
| HMMT Feb 2026Source | 86.4% | — | Not comparable |
| MMAnswerBenchSource | 82.5% | — | Not comparable |
| FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source | 16.434% | 0.345% | GLM-5 leads |
| FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source | 2.100% | — | Not comparable |
Multilingual2 benchmarks
Multimodal1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GLM-5 | GPT-4o | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Design Arena WebsiteSource | 1280 | 864 | GLM-5 leads |
Frequently Asked Questions (2)
Which is better, GLM-5 or GPT-4o?
GLM-5 is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 66.06 to 41.49. The biggest single separator in this matchup is FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3), where the scores are 16.434% and 0.345%.
Which is better for math, GLM-5 or GPT-4o?
GLM-5 has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 56.3 versus 0.3. Inside this category, FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3) is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Related Comparisons
Explore More
Choose a model with this week’s evidence
Join 2,000+ readers for ranking moves, pricing changes, and the claims that still need proof.
One email each week. Unsubscribe anytime.