Math
Like-for-like- MiniCPM5-1B
- 33.1
- ZAYA1-8B
- 80.4
- Weighted basis
- 2 vs 2 rows
- Reading
- ZAYA1-8B leads
MiniCPM5-1B vs ZAYA1-8B
Updated August 22, 2026. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. They are not guarantees for a specific workload.
Decision reading
ZAYA1-8B has the higher public score estimate, 30.97 versus 11.3, but the 90% score intervals overlap. Treat that as a lead, not a settled winner.
8 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.
No workload recommendation clears the current evidence threshold.
Use the matched evidence, workload costs, and sourced specifications below instead of treating a point score as a universal answer.
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
Long documents
Prompts that approach the documented context limit
No clear pick
The documented context windows are equal.
Confidence: documented
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. MiniCPM5-1B does not fit this workload in one request. ZAYA1-8B does not fit this workload in one request. MiniCPM5-1B has no comparable published API token rate. ZAYA1-8B has no comparable published API token rate.
Confidence: listed-rates
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.
6 MiniCPM5-1B only
8 Shared
3 ZAYA1-8B only
- Shared results
- 8
- MiniCPM5-1B only
- 6
- ZAYA1-8B only
- 3
- Like-for-like categories
- 2 / 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.
Instruction following
Like-for-like- MiniCPM5-1B
- 58.5
- ZAYA1-8B
- 64.1
- Weighted basis
- 2 vs 2 rows
- Reading
- ZAYA1-8B leads
Knowledge
Directional only- MiniCPM5-1B
- 44.0
- ZAYA1-8B
- 73.6
- Weighted basis
- 2 vs 2 rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Agentic
Not comparable- MiniCPM5-1B
- Not measured
- ZAYA1-8B
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Coding
Not comparable- MiniCPM5-1B
- Not measured
- ZAYA1-8B
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Reasoning
Not comparable- MiniCPM5-1B
- Not measured
- ZAYA1-8B
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multilingual
Not comparable- MiniCPM5-1B
- Not measured
- ZAYA1-8B
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multimodal
Not comparable- MiniCPM5-1B
- Not measured
- ZAYA1-8B
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
| Category | MiniCPM5-1B | ZAYA1-8B | Weighted basis | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Math | 33.1 | 80.4 | Like-for-like2 vs 2 rows | ZAYA1-8B leads |
| Instruction following | 58.5 | 64.1 | Like-for-like2 vs 2 rows | ZAYA1-8B leads |
| Knowledge | 44.0 | 73.6 | Directional only2 vs 2 rows | Directional only |
| Agentic | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Coding | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Reasoning | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Multilingual | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Multimodal | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 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.
AIME26
Math
HMMT Feb 2026
Math
MMLU-Pro
Knowledge
IFBench
Instruction following
IFEval
Instruction following
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
- MiniCPM5-1B
- API rate not published
- Fits in one request
- ZAYA1-8B
- Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
- Fits in one request
MiniCPM5-1B has no comparable published API token rate. ZAYA1-8B has no comparable published API token rate.
Repository review
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
- MiniCPM5-1B
- API rate not published
- Fits in one request
- ZAYA1-8B
- Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
- Fits in one request
MiniCPM5-1B has no comparable published API token rate. ZAYA1-8B has no comparable published API token rate.
Cache-heavy agent loop
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
- MiniCPM5-1B
- API rate not published
- Does not fit in one request
- Cached-input rate unavailable
- ZAYA1-8B
- Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
- Does not fit in one request
- Cached-input rate unavailable
MiniCPM5-1B does not fit this workload in one request. ZAYA1-8B does not fit this workload in one request. MiniCPM5-1B has no comparable published API token rate. ZAYA1-8B 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.
SpecificationMiniCPM5-1BZAYA1-8B
Context window
Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.
MiniCPM5-1B
131K
ZAYA1-8B
131K
API model ID
MiniCPM5-1B
Not sourced
ZAYA1-8B
Not sourced
Cached-input rate
A missing cached-input rate falls back to the listed input rate only in the stated workload estimate.
MiniCPM5-1B
No comparable hosted API rate
ZAYA1-8B
No comparable hosted API rate
Documented inputs
MiniCPM5-1B
Not sourced
ZAYA1-8B
Not sourced
Documented outputs
MiniCPM5-1B
Not sourced
ZAYA1-8B
Not sourced
Provider availability
MiniCPM5-1B
Not sourced
ZAYA1-8B
Not sourced
Reasoning profile
MiniCPM5-1B
Reasoning
ZAYA1-8B
Reasoning
Weight access
MiniCPM5-1B
Open Weight
ZAYA1-8B
Open Weight
License
MiniCPM5-1B
Open Weight
ZAYA1-8B
Open Weight
Release date
MiniCPM5-1B
2026-05-25
ZAYA1-8B
2026-05-05
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
- ZAYA1-8B has the higher public score estimate, 30.97 versus 11.3, but the 90% score intervals overlap.
- Workload cost
- A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
- Context tradeoff
- Both models list 131K.
Run the same representative tasks against both endpoints before changing production traffic.
Benchmark evidence
The full public result ledger is available for audit without forcing a wide desktop table onto a phone.
Browse raw public benchmark evidence17 rows
Agentic
Coding
Reasoning
BBH
MiniCPM5-1B71.9%SourceZAYA1-8B—Not directly comparable
Knowledge
MMLU-Pro
MiniCPM5-1B48.9%SourceZAYA1-8B74.2%SourceZAYA1-8B leads this result
MMLU-Redux
MiniCPM5-1B70.1%SourceZAYA1-8B—Not directly comparable
GPQA-D
MiniCPM5-1B26.3%SourceZAYA1-8B71.0%SourceZAYA1-8B leads this result
SuperGPQA
MiniCPM5-1B23.1%SourceZAYA1-8B—Not directly comparable
GPQA
MiniCPM5-1B—ZAYA1-8B71%SourceNot directly comparable
Math
AIME 2025
MiniCPM5-1B40.4%SourceZAYA1-8B—Not directly comparable
AIME26
MiniCPM5-1B40.4%SourceZAYA1-8B89.1%SourceZAYA1-8B leads this result
HMMT Feb 2026
MiniCPM5-1B25.8%SourceZAYA1-8B71.6%SourceZAYA1-8B leads this result
MATH-500
MiniCPM5-1B91.6%SourceZAYA1-8B—Not directly comparable
IMOAnswerBench
MiniCPM5-1B—ZAYA1-8B59.3%SourceNot directly comparable
Apex
MiniCPM5-1B—ZAYA1-8B32.2%SourceNot directly comparable
Instruction following
Frequently asked questions
Which is better, MiniCPM5-1B or ZAYA1-8B?
ZAYA1-8B has the higher public score estimate, 30.97 versus 11.3, but the 90% score intervals overlap. The higher estimate is not a decisive winner because the uncertainty ranges overlap.
Which is better for coding, MiniCPM5-1B or ZAYA1-8B?
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, MiniCPM5-1B or ZAYA1-8B?
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, MiniCPM5-1B or ZAYA1-8B?
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, MiniCPM5-1B or ZAYA1-8B?
Both models list the same context window, 131K.
Related comparisons
Last updated August 22, 2026
Watch MiniCPM5-1B vs ZAYA1-8B
One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.
Read a sample issueJoin 2,000+ readers.