Math
Directional only- GLM-5
- 56.3
- Llama 4 Scout
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 4 vs 1 rows
- Reading
- Directional only
GLM-5 vs Llama 4 Scout
Updated September 3, 2026. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. They are not guarantees for a specific workload.
Decision reading
GLM-5 has the higher public score estimate, 65.68 versus 39.79, 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
Llama 4 Scout
Llama 4 Scout has the larger documented context window.
Confidence: documented
Show secondary and unsupported calls
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
Chat turn cost
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
Not enough matched evidence
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Confidence: listed-rates
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 does not fit this workload in one request. GLM-5 has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate. Llama 4 Scout has no comparable published API token rate.
Confidence: rate-fallback
Repository review cost
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
Not enough matched evidence
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Confidence: listed-rates
What is actually comparable
Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results present for only one model describe coverage, not superiority.
35 GLM-5 only
1 Shared
- Shared results
- 1
- GLM-5 only
- 35
- Llama 4 Scout only
- 0
- Like-for-like categories
- 0 / 8
1 category uses different evidence sets. Those rows remain visible for coverage context but do not name a winner.
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
- 56.2
- Llama 4 Scout
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 1 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Coding
Not comparable- GLM-5
- 66.3
- Llama 4 Scout
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 3 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Reasoning
Not comparable- GLM-5
- 60.8
- Llama 4 Scout
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 1 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Knowledge
Not comparable- GLM-5
- 66.4
- Llama 4 Scout
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 4 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multilingual
Not comparable- GLM-5
- 83.1
- Llama 4 Scout
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 1 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multimodal
Not comparable- GLM-5
- Not measured
- Llama 4 Scout
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Instruction following
Not comparable- GLM-5
- 92.6
- Llama 4 Scout
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 1 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
| Category | GLM-5 | Llama 4 Scout | Weighted basis | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Math | 56.3 | Not measured | Directional only4 vs 1 rows | Directional only |
| Agentic | 56.2 | Not measured | Not comparable1 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Coding | 66.3 | Not measured | Not comparable3 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Reasoning | 60.8 | Not measured | Not comparable1 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Knowledge | 66.4 | Not measured | Not comparable4 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Multilingual | 83.1 | Not measured | Not comparable1 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Multimodal | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Instruction following | 92.6 | Not measured | Not comparable1 vs 0 rows | 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.
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.
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)
Math
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
- $0.0026
- Fits in one request
- Llama 4 Scout
- Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
- Fits in one request
Llama 4 Scout has no comparable published API token rate.
Repository review
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
- GLM-5
- $0.0596
- Fits in one request
- Llama 4 Scout
- Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
- Fits in one request
Llama 4 Scout has no comparable published API token rate.
Cache-heavy agent loop
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
- GLM-5
- $0.252
- Does not fit in one request
- Cached input priced at the published list-input rate
- Llama 4 Scout
- Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
- Fits in one request
- Cached-input rate unavailable
GLM-5 does not fit this workload in one request. GLM-5 has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate. Llama 4 Scout has no comparable published API token rate.
Specification differences
Sourced differences are shown directly. Missing facts stay explicit instead of being inferred from a model name or family.
SpecificationGLM-5Llama 4 Scout
Context window
Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.
GLM-5
200K
Llama 4 Scout
10M
API model ID
GLM-5
Not sourced
Llama 4 Scout
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
Not published
Llama 4 Scout
No comparable hosted API rate
Documented inputs
GLM-5
Not sourced
Llama 4 Scout
Not sourced
Documented outputs
GLM-5
Not sourced
Llama 4 Scout
Not sourced
Provider availability
GLM-5
Not sourced
Llama 4 Scout
Not sourced
Reasoning profile
GLM-5
Non-Reasoning
Llama 4 Scout
Non-Reasoning
Weight access
GLM-5
Open Weight
Llama 4 Scout
Open Weight
License
GLM-5
Open Weight
Llama 4 Scout
Open Weight
Release date
GLM-5
2026-03-01
Llama 4 Scout
2026-02-28
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 has the higher public score estimate, 65.68 versus 39.79, but the 90% score intervals overlap.
- Workload cost
- A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
- Context tradeoff
- Llama 4 Scout has the larger documented window (10M).
Run the same representative tasks against both endpoints before changing production traffic.
Self-host vs API cost
Estimates at 50,000 req/day · 1000 tokens/req average.
GLM-5
API / mo$3,150
Self-host / moNot listed
Break-even—
Proprietary model — self-hosting not applicable.
Llama 4 Scout
API / mo$0
Self-host / mo$2,278
Break-even—
Benchmark evidence
The full public result ledger is available for audit without forcing a wide desktop table onto a phone.
Browse raw public benchmark evidence36 rows
Agentic
Terminal-Bench 2.0
GLM-556.2%SourceLlama 4 Scout—Not directly comparable
Claw-Eval
GLM-557.7%SourceLlama 4 Scout—Not directly comparable
QwenClawBench
GLM-554.1%SourceLlama 4 Scout—Not directly comparable
τ³-bench results
GLM-565.6%SourceLlama 4 Scout—Not directly comparable
DeepPlanning
GLM-514.6%SourceLlama 4 Scout—Not directly comparable
Toolathlon
GLM-538%SourceLlama 4 Scout—Not directly comparable
MCP Atlas
GLM-531.1%SourceLlama 4 Scout—Not directly comparable
MCP-Tasks
GLM-560.8%SourceLlama 4 Scout—Not directly comparable
WideResearch
GLM-569.8%SourceLlama 4 Scout—Not directly comparable
CyberGym
GLM-543.2%SourceLlama 4 Scout—Not directly comparable
Gert Labs
GLM-550.99%SourceLlama 4 Scout—Not directly comparable
Coding
SWE-bench Verified
GLM-577.8%SourceLlama 4 Scout—Not directly comparable
SWE-bench Verified*
GLM-572.8%SourceLlama 4 Scout—Not directly comparable
SWE-bench Pro
GLM-555.1%SourceLlama 4 Scout—Not directly comparable
SWE Multilingual
GLM-573.3%SourceLlama 4 Scout—Not directly comparable
SWE-Rebench
GLM-562.8%SourceLlama 4 Scout—Not directly comparable
React Native Evals
GLM-574.8%SourceLlama 4 Scout—Not directly comparable
Reasoning
Knowledge
GPQA
GLM-586%SourceLlama 4 Scout—Not directly comparable
GPQA-D
GLM-586.0%SourceLlama 4 Scout—Not directly comparable
SuperGPQA
GLM-566.8%SourceLlama 4 Scout—Not directly comparable
MMLU-Pro
GLM-585.7%SourceLlama 4 Scout—Not directly comparable
MMLU-Pro (Arcee)
GLM-585.8%SourceLlama 4 Scout—Not directly comparable
HLE
GLM-550.4%SourceLlama 4 Scout—Not directly comparable
Math
AIME26
GLM-595.8%SourceLlama 4 Scout—Not directly comparable
AIME25 (Arcee)
GLM-593.3%SourceLlama 4 Scout—Not directly comparable
HMMT Feb 2025
GLM-597.5%SourceLlama 4 Scout—Not directly comparable
HMMT Nov 2025
GLM-596.9%SourceLlama 4 Scout—Not directly comparable
HMMT Feb 2026
GLM-586.4%SourceLlama 4 Scout—Not directly comparable
MMAnswerBench
GLM-582.5%SourceLlama 4 Scout—Not directly comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)
Shared sourceGLM-516.434%Llama 4 Scout0.000%GLM-5 leads this result
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)
GLM-52.100%SourceLlama 4 Scout—Not directly comparable
Multilingual
Instruction following
IFEval
GLM-592.6%SourceLlama 4 Scout—Not directly comparable
Frequently asked questions
Which is better, GLM-5 or Llama 4 Scout?
GLM-5 has the higher public score estimate, 65.68 versus 39.79, 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 or Llama 4 Scout?
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 or Llama 4 Scout?
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 or Llama 4 Scout?
Both models do not have comparable published API token rates, so this page does not name a universal price winner.
Which has the larger context window, GLM-5 or Llama 4 Scout?
Llama 4 Scout has the larger documented context window: 10M, compared with 200K.
Related comparisons
Last updated September 3, 2026
Watch GLM-5 vs Llama 4 Scout
One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.
Read a sample issueJoin 2,000+ readers.