Model comparison
GLM-5 vs GPT-5.1
Head-to-head evidence from 15 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-5.1 #94 (Estimated). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. GLM-5 and GPT-5.1 share 15 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 34 results are unique to GLM-5; 6 to GPT-5.1.
Updated July 20, 2026- Shared results
- 15
- GLM-5 only
- 34
- GPT-5.1 only
- 6
- Comparable categories
- 1 / 8
Pick GLM-5 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. GPT-5.1 only becomes the better choice if you want the stronger reasoning-first profile.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 15 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 53.65. 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 26.4. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3), 16.434% to 31.034%.
GPT-5.1 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $1.25 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. GPT-5.1 is the reasoning model in the pair, while GLM-5 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.
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-5.1 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Math | GLM-556.3 | Margin← 29.9 | GPT-5.126.4 |
| Agentic | GLM-556.2 | MarginNo overlap | GPT-5.1Not measured |
| Coding | GLM-566.3 | MarginNo overlap | GPT-5.1Not measured |
| Reasoning | GLM-560.8 | MarginNo overlap | GPT-5.1Not measured |
| Knowledge | GLM-566.4 | MarginNo overlap | GPT-5.1Not measured |
| Multilingual | GLM-583.1 | MarginNo overlap | GPT-5.1Not measured |
| Inst. Following | GLM-592.6 | MarginNo overlap | GPT-5.1Not 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 31.034%Winner: GPT-5.1Δ 14.6FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3): GLM-5 scored 16.434%; GPT-5.1 scored 31.034%. GPT-5.1 wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)
MathA 2.100%B 12.500%Winner: GPT-5.1Δ 10.4FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4): GLM-5 scored 2.100%; GPT-5.1 scored 12.500%. GPT-5.1 wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | GLM-5 | GPT-5.1 | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | GLM-5$1 input / $3.2 output | GPT-5.1$1.25 input / $10 output | GLM-5 has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | GLM-574 tok/s | GPT-5.1111 tok/s | GPT-5.1 has the higher measured throughput. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | GLM-51.64 s | GPT-5.157.47 s | GLM-5 reaches the first token sooner. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | GLM-5200K | GPT-5.1200K | Listed context windows are equal. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic16 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GLM-5 | GPT-5.1 | 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% | 81.9% | GLM-5 leads |
| CyberGymSource | 43.2% | — | Not comparable |
| APEX-Agents-AASource | 14.5% | — | Not comparable |
| Gert LabsSource | 50.99% | 41.24% | GLM-5 leads |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | — | 21.0% | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | — | 24.4% | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | — | 987 | Not comparable |
Coding9 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GLM-5 | GPT-5.1 | 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% | 43.3% | GLM-5 leads |
| Vibe Code BenchSource | — | 24.61% | Not comparable |
| AA Coding IndexSource | — | 49.4% | Not comparable |
Reasoning4 benchmarks
Knowledge12 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GLM-5 | GPT-5.1 | 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% | 36.9% | GLM-5 leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 82.0% | 87.3% | GPT-5.1 leads |
| AA-HLESource | 27.2% | 26.5% | GLM-5 leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | 2.0% | 5.6% | GPT-5.1 leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 26.9% | 37.6% | GPT-5.1 leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 34.0% | 51.3% | GLM-5 leads |
MathGLM-5 wins8 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GLM-5 | GPT-5.1 | 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% | 31.034% | GPT-5.1 leads |
| FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source | 2.100% | 12.500% | GPT-5.1 leads |
Multilingual2 benchmarks
Multimodal2 benchmarks
Frequently Asked Questions (2)
Which is better, GLM-5 or GPT-5.1?
GLM-5 is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 66.06 to 53.65. The biggest single separator in this matchup is FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3), where the scores are 16.434% and 31.034%.
Which is better for math, GLM-5 or GPT-5.1?
GLM-5 has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 56.3 versus 26.4. 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.