Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus vs GLM 5

GLM 5 leads DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index, 27.9 to 14.8, and DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus costs 3.2x less per output token ($1.0142 vs $3.20 per million). Updated October 21, 2026; 35 benchmarks have a result for both.

Replace DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus Replace GLM 5
DeepSeek V3.1 TerminusDeepSeek
Coding
No data
Overall
14.8
Output $/M
$1.0142
2
GLM 5Z.ai
Coding
41.7
Overall
27.9
Output $/M
$3.20
33
vs boards won of 35 shared

DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus or GLM 5: which to pick

Only GLM 5 has a coding score, 41.7 on the Vibe Coding Index; DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding.

Pick DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus for output tokens 3.2x cheaper ($1.0142 vs $3.20 per million) and work measured by LMArena Text: medicine and healthcare or LMArena Text: legal and government, where it leads.

Model ADeepSeek V3.1 TerminusDeepSeekNot benchmarkedNo coding benchmarkNo cost per solved taskModel BGLM 5Z.ai41.7/1003 independent benchmarks$0.63 per solved task
Shared results
35
DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus only
9
GLM 5 only
40
Like-for-like categories
8 of 9

Only benchmarks that tested both models count toward a pick; a result only one model has is shown but not compared.

Which one for your work

Each card is decided by one number both models carry. Where only one has it, the card says so and makes no call.

At a glance

Coding index
DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus not benchmarked, GLM 5 41.7 from 3 benchmarks.
Widest category
Agentic work, 61.1 points apart on average over 1 shared benchmark.
Widest single gap
τ²-Bench Telecom: DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus 37.1% against GLM 5 98.2%, 61.1 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
Output price
DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus $1.0142 against GLM 5 $3.20 per million output tokens, 3.2x apart.
Context window
DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus takes 164K tokens, GLM 5 205K.

Benchmark by benchmark

First the score: boards each model leads, per category, where both have a result. Then every board, a category to a fold; bars are each result on a 0 to 100 scale, so compare the two in a row, not one row with another.

Boards won, where both have a result
CategoryDeepSeek V3.1 TerminusBarsGLM 5Ties
Coding04
Intelligence01
Agentic work01
Reasoning04
Math01
Knowledge22
Web design07
General013
All shared boards233
CodingLike-for-likeSix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index04
Coding benchmarks for DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus and GLM 5
BenchmarkDeepSeek V3.1 TerminusGLM 5Leader
SWE-bench VerifiedNot measured72.8%Only GLM 5 measured
SWE-bench MultilingualNot measured69.7%Only GLM 5 measured
LMArena WebDevNot measured1435Only GLM 5 measured
AA Coding Index43.5Not measuredOnly DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus measured
LiveCodeBench (Vals AI)Not measured81.9%Only GLM 5 measured
SWE-bench Verified (Vals AI)Not measured71.4%Only GLM 5 measured
Vibe Code Bench (Vals AI)Not measured23.4%Only GLM 5 measured
LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run)79.8%Not measuredOnly DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus measured
SciCode38.0%Not measuredOnly DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus measured
Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run)31.8%43.2%GLM 5
Terminal-BenchNot measured52.4%Only GLM 5 measured
WeirdMLNot measured48.2%Only GLM 5 measured
ALE-Bench745.2765.6GLM 5
LMArena Text: coding14251461GLM 5
LMArena Text: software and IT14261460GLM 5
LMArena WebDev: ReactNot measured1424Only GLM 5 measured
LMArena WebDev: HTMLNot measured1450Only GLM 5 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 21 boards here
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
Intelligence benchmarks for DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus and GLM 5
BenchmarkDeepSeek V3.1 TerminusGLM 5Leader
AA Intelligence Index14.827.9GLM 5
Epoch Capabilities IndexNot measured145.8Only GLM 5 measured
Agentic workLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
Agentic work benchmarks for DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus and GLM 5
BenchmarkDeepSeek V3.1 TerminusGLM 5Leader
AA Agentic Index6.8Not measuredOnly DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus measured
Design Arena: agents building full-stack appsNot measured1123Only GLM 5 measured
Design Arena: agents building mobile appsNot measured1136Only GLM 5 measured
Design Arena: agents building Android appsNot measured1146Only GLM 5 measured
Design Arena: agents building Godot gamesNot measured1144Only GLM 5 measured
Design Arena: HTML slidesNot measured1148Only GLM 5 measured
τ²-Bench Telecom37.1%98.2%GLM 5
Vending-Bench 2Not measured$4,432Only GLM 5 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 31 boards here
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index04
Reasoning benchmarks for DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus and GLM 5
BenchmarkDeepSeek V3.1 TerminusGLM 5Leader
GPQA DiamondNot measured83.3%Only GLM 5 measured
GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run)79.2%82.0%GLM 5
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)16.4%29.3%GLM 5
GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run)Not measured87.8%Only GLM 5 measured
ARC-AGINot measured44.7%Only GLM 5 measured
ARC-AGI-2Not measured4.9%Only GLM 5 measured
SimpleBenchNot measured53.2%Only GLM 5 measured
LMArena Text: hard prompts14261452GLM 5
LMArena Text: expertNot measured1454Only GLM 5 measured
LMArena Text: hard prompts in English14321460GLM 5
Neither model has a result on the other 11 boards here
MathLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
Math benchmarks for DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus and GLM 5
BenchmarkDeepSeek V3.1 TerminusGLM 5Leader
AIMENot measured91.7%Only GLM 5 measured
AA Math Index89.7Not measuredOnly DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus measured
AIME 2025 (Artificial Analysis run)89.7%Not measuredOnly DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus measured
OTIS Mock AIMENot measured80.0%Only GLM 5 measured
LMArena Text: math14021440GLM 5
LMArena Text: mathematical workNot measured1451Only GLM 5 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 7 boards here
KnowledgeLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index22
Knowledge benchmarks for DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus and GLM 5
BenchmarkDeepSeek V3.1 TerminusGLM 5Leader
MMLU ProNot measured86.0%Only GLM 5 measured
LegalBench (Vals AI)Not measured84.1%Only GLM 5 measured
CaseLaw (Vals AI)Not measured52.5%Only GLM 5 measured
CorpFin (Vals AI)Not measured62.9%Only GLM 5 measured
TaxEval (Vals AI)Not measured70.0%Only GLM 5 measured
MedQA (Vals AI)Not measured94.3%Only GLM 5 measured
MMLU Pro (Artificial Analysis run)85.1%Not measuredOnly DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus measured
LMArena Text: science14511460GLM 5
LMArena Text: medicine and healthcare14681455DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus
LMArena Text: legal and government14571453DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus
LMArena Text: business and finance14141430GLM 5
Neither model has a result on the other 6 boards here
Web designLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index07
Web design benchmarks for DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus and GLM 5
BenchmarkDeepSeek V3.1 TerminusGLM 5Leader
Design Arena: websites11871247GLM 5
Design Arena: UI components11821230GLM 5
Design Arena: game dev11311234GLM 5
Design Arena: data viz11671228GLM 5
Design Arena: 3D11411229GLM 5
Design Arena: all code categories11751246GLM 5
Design Arena: SVG10651168GLM 5
Design Arena: ASCII artNot measured1147Only GLM 5 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 1 board here
GeneralLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index013
General benchmarks for DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus and GLM 5
BenchmarkDeepSeek V3.1 TerminusGLM 5Leader
IFBench57.0%72.3%GLM 5
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR)69.3%75.7%GLM 5
DTBench81.3%Not measuredOnly DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus measured
LMCA28.6%Not measuredOnly DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus measured
CL-benchNot measured18.7%Only GLM 5 measured
LMArena Text14191446GLM 5
LMArena Text: instruction following14041428GLM 5
LMArena Text: creative writing14031438GLM 5
LMArena Text: English14291458GLM 5
LMArena Text: non-English14081430GLM 5
LMArena Text: ChineseNot measured1511Only GLM 5 measured
LMArena Text: GermanNot measured1447Only GLM 5 measured
LMArena Text: JapaneseNot measured1416Only GLM 5 measured
LMArena Text: KoreanNot measured1423Only GLM 5 measured
LMArena Text: FrenchNot measured1456Only GLM 5 measured
LMArena Text: SpanishNot measured1454Only GLM 5 measured
LMArena Text: Russian14351436GLM 5
LMArena Text: Polish14271434GLM 5
LMArena Text: multi-turn14111456GLM 5
LMArena Text: longer queries14221446GLM 5
LMArena Text: writing and language14091437GLM 5
LMArena Text: entertainment and media13911426GLM 5
Neither model has a result on the other 24 boards here
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
Image generation benchmarks for DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus and GLM 5
BenchmarkDeepSeek V3.1 TerminusGLM 5Leader
Neither model has a result on 5 boards here

What each workload costs

Three fixed token mixes at each model's listed price, so per-token rates become a bill.

Chat turn

1K input + 500 output tokens

DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus$0.0008Fits in one request
GLM 5$0.0026Fits in one request

DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus costs less

Repository review

50K input + 3K output tokens

DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus$0.018Fits in one request
GLM 5$0.060Fits in one request

DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus costs less

Agent loop

200K input + 10K output tokens

DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus$0.071Exceeds the context window
GLM 5$0.232Exceeds the context window

DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus costs less

Listed OpenRouter rates, without cache or batch discounts. A workload that does not fit a model's context window would need splitting.

Specification differences

The leading value in a row is marked; a row with a missing value names no leader. Our two rows are marked in red.

Specifications of DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus and GLM 5
SpecificationDeepSeek V3.1 TerminusZ.ai GLM 5
MakerDeepSeekZ.ai
WeightsOpen weightsOpen weights
ReleasedSeptember 22, 2025February 11, 2026
Context window164K205K
Input $/Mtok$0.3063$1.00
Output $/Mtok$1.0142$3.20
Coding indexNot benchmarked41.7
Independent measurements behind it03
Cost per solved taskNot computable$0.63
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus better than GLM 5 for coding?

Only GLM 5 has a coding score, 41.7 on the Vibe Coding Index; DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Pick DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus for output tokens 3.2x cheaper ($1.0142 vs $3.20 per million) and work measured by LMArena Text: medicine and healthcare or LMArena Text: legal and government, where it leads.

Which is cheaper, DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus or GLM 5?

DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus costs $0.3063 per million input tokens and $1.0142 per million output tokens; GLM 5 costs $1.00 and $3.20. Cost per solved task is known for GLM 5 only.

Which has the bigger context window, DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus or GLM 5?

GLM 5, with 205K tokens against 164K.

How many benchmarks is the DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus vs GLM 5 comparison based on?

35 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 21, 2026. DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus's coding index rests on 0 independent benchmarks and GLM 5's on 3. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.

Compare next