Model comparison
GLM-5 vs Seed 1.6
Head-to-head evidence from 0 shared benchmark results across 0 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: GLM-5 #28 (Supported); Seed 1.6 #115 (Estimated). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. GLM-5 and Seed 1.6 share 0 comparable benchmark results. 0 of 8 categories are comparable. 49 results are unique to GLM-5; 0 to Seed 1.6.
Updated July 18, 2026- Shared results
- 0
- GLM-5 only
- 49
- Seed 1.6 only
- 0
- Comparable categories
- 0 / 8
Benchmark data for GLM-5 and Seed 1.6 is coming soon on BenchLM.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 0 shared benchmark results across 0 evidence categories; 0 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.
Why this result
BenchLM does not have sourced benchmark coverage for Seed 1.6 yet. This comparison is currently limited to metadata such as context window, reasoning mode, and pricing where available.
Seed 1.6 has the larger context window at 256K, compared with 200K for GLM-5.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | GLM-5 | Seed 1.6 | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | GLM-5$1 input / $3.2 output | Seed 1.6Not available | A complete price comparison is not available. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | GLM-574 tok/s | Seed 1.6Not available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | GLM-51.64 s | Seed 1.6Not available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | GLM-5200K | Seed 1.6256K | Seed 1.6 lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic13 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GLM-5 | Seed 1.6 | 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% | — | Not comparable |
| CyberGymSource | 43.2% | — | Not comparable |
| APEX-Agents-AASource | 14.5% | — | Not comparable |
| Gert LabsSource | 50.99% | — | Not comparable |
Coding7 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GLM-5 | Seed 1.6 | 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% | — | Not comparable |
Reasoning4 benchmarks
Knowledge12 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GLM-5 | Seed 1.6 | 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% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 82.0% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-HLESource | 27.2% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | 2.0% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 26.9% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 34.0% | — | Not comparable |
Math8 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GLM-5 | Seed 1.6 | 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% | — | Not comparable |
| FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source | 2.100% | — | Not comparable |
Multilingual2 benchmarks
Multimodal1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GLM-5 | Seed 1.6 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Design Arena WebsiteSource | 1280 | — | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (3)
Can I compare GLM-5 and Seed 1.6 on BenchLM yet?
Not fully yet. BenchLM is tracking both models, but the sourced benchmark breakdown for this comparison is still coming soon.
Why does this comparison show “coming soon”?
BenchLM only shows category winners and benchmark-level calls when we have sourced results that can be compared fairly. For these models, the public benchmark coverage is not complete enough yet.
What data is available for GLM-5 and Seed 1.6 today?
GLM-5: $1.00 input / $3.20 output per 1M tokens Seed 1.6: Pricing unavailable Both model pages still include creator, context window, reasoning mode, and other metadata while benchmark coverage fills in.
Related Comparisons
Explore More
The AI models change fast. We track them for you.
A weekly brief for engineers and researchers covering new models, ranking shifts, and pricing changes.
Free. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.