Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite vs GLM 4.5

Updated October 21, 2026. 20 benchmarks have a result for both. Coding is ranked on the Vibe Coding Index; every other board is shown as published.

Gemini 2.5 Flash LiteGoogle
Coding
No data
Overall
10.4
Output $/M
$0.40
4
GLM 4.5Z.ai
Coding
No data
Overall
12.8
Output $/M
$2.20
16
vs boards won of 20 shared

Decision reading

Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding.

Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite has the edge where output tokens cost 5.5x less, and where the context window is larger, 1.05M against 131K tokens.

Shared results
20
Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite only
8
GLM 4.5 only
40
Like-for-like categories
7 of 9

Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results only one model has describe coverage, not superiority.

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
Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite not benchmarked, GLM 4.5 not benchmarked.
Widest category
Agentic work, 24.0 points apart on average over 1 shared benchmark.
Widest single gap
AIME: Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite 42.1% against GLM 4.5 86.7%, 44.6 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
Output price
Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite $0.40 against GLM 4.5 $2.20 per million output tokens, 5.5x apart.
Context window
Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite takes 1.05M tokens, GLM 4.5 131K.

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
CategoryGemini 2.5 Flash LiteBarsGLM 4.5Ties
Coding12
Intelligence01
Agentic work01
Reasoning03
Math04
Knowledge15
General20
All shared boards416
CodingLike-for-likeSix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index12
Coding benchmarks for Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite and GLM 4.5
BenchmarkGemini 2.5 Flash LiteGLM 4.5Leader
SWE-bench VerifiedNot measured64.2%Only GLM 4.5 measured
LiveCodeBench (Vals AI)71.4%67.5%Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite
LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run)59.3%73.8%GLM 4.5
Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run)4.5%22.0%GLM 4.5
WeirdMLNot measured40.6%Only GLM 4.5 measured
ALE-BenchNot measured344.8Only GLM 4.5 measured
LMArena Text: codingNot measured1434Only GLM 4.5 measured
LMArena Text: software and ITNot measured1440Only GLM 4.5 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 30 boards here
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
Intelligence benchmarks for Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite and GLM 4.5
BenchmarkGemini 2.5 Flash LiteGLM 4.5Leader
AA Intelligence Index10.412.8GLM 4.5
Epoch Capabilities Index133.8Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite measured
Agentic workLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
Agentic work benchmarks for Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite and GLM 4.5
BenchmarkGemini 2.5 Flash LiteGLM 4.5Leader
τ²-Bench Telecom19.0%43.0%GLM 4.5
Neither model has a result on the other 38 boards here
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index03
Reasoning benchmarks for Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite and GLM 4.5
BenchmarkGemini 2.5 Flash LiteGLM 4.5Leader
GPQA Diamond70.2%72.2%GLM 4.5
MMMU Pro (Vals AI)75.4%Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite measured
GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run)62.5%78.2%GLM 4.5
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)6.8%13.0%GLM 4.5
LMArena Text: hard promptsNot measured1429Only GLM 4.5 measured
LMArena Text: expertNot measured1433Only GLM 4.5 measured
LMArena Text: hard prompts in EnglishNot measured1429Only GLM 4.5 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 14 boards here
MathLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index04
Math benchmarks for Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite and GLM 4.5
BenchmarkGemini 2.5 Flash LiteGLM 4.5Leader
AIME42.1%86.7%GLM 4.5
MATH 500 (Vals AI)Not measured94.0%Only GLM 4.5 measured
MGSM (Vals AI)89.5%90.8%GLM 4.5
AA Math Index53.373.7GLM 4.5
AIME 2025 (Artificial Analysis run)53.3%73.7%GLM 4.5
LMArena Text: mathNot measured1427Only GLM 4.5 measured
LMArena Text: mathematical workNot measured1430Only GLM 4.5 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 6 boards here
KnowledgeLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index15
Knowledge benchmarks for Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite and GLM 4.5
BenchmarkGemini 2.5 Flash LiteGLM 4.5Leader
MMLU Pro79.1%81.2%GLM 4.5
LegalBench (Vals AI)82.0%75.6%Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite
CorpFin (Vals AI)57.6%61.0%GLM 4.5
TaxEval (Vals AI)66.2%72.4%GLM 4.5
MortgageTax (Vals AI)57.6%Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite measured
MedQA (Vals AI)88.9%90.0%GLM 4.5
MedCode (Vals AI)34.2%Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite measured
MMLU Pro (Artificial Analysis run)75.9%83.5%GLM 4.5
LMArena Text: scienceNot measured1444Only GLM 4.5 measured
LMArena Text: medicine and healthcareNot measured1455Only GLM 4.5 measured
LMArena Text: legal and governmentNot measured1438Only GLM 4.5 measured
LMArena Text: business and financeNot measured1420Only GLM 4.5 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 5 boards here
Web designDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index7 boards, none shared
Web design benchmarks for Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite and GLM 4.5
BenchmarkGemini 2.5 Flash LiteGLM 4.5Leader
Design Arena: websitesNot measured1170Only GLM 4.5 measured
Design Arena: UI componentsNot measured1144Only GLM 4.5 measured
Design Arena: game devNot measured1145Only GLM 4.5 measured
Design Arena: data vizNot measured1159Only GLM 4.5 measured
Design Arena: 3DNot measured1170Only GLM 4.5 measured
Design Arena: all code categoriesNot measured1165Only GLM 4.5 measured
Design Arena: SVGNot measured1096Only GLM 4.5 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 2 boards here
GeneralLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index20
General benchmarks for Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite and GLM 4.5
BenchmarkGemini 2.5 Flash LiteGLM 4.5Leader
SAGE (Vals AI)30.8%Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite measured
MedScribe (Vals AI)75.8%Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite measured
IFBench49.9%44.1%Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR)55.7%52.7%Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite
DTBench62.8%Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite measured
LMCA18.1%Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite measured
Creative writing (Lech Mazur)Not measured73.4%Only GLM 4.5 measured
LMArena TextNot measured1430Only GLM 4.5 measured
LMArena Text: instruction followingNot measured1404Only GLM 4.5 measured
LMArena Text: creative writingNot measured1395Only GLM 4.5 measured
LMArena Text: EnglishNot measured1437Only GLM 4.5 measured
LMArena Text: non-EnglishNot measured1417Only GLM 4.5 measured
LMArena Text: ChineseNot measured1465Only GLM 4.5 measured
LMArena Text: GermanNot measured1407Only GLM 4.5 measured
LMArena Text: JapaneseNot measured1415Only GLM 4.5 measured
LMArena Text: KoreanNot measured1380Only GLM 4.5 measured
LMArena Text: FrenchNot measured1418Only GLM 4.5 measured
LMArena Text: SpanishNot measured1454Only GLM 4.5 measured
LMArena Text: RussianNot measured1413Only GLM 4.5 measured
LMArena Text: PolishNot measured1422Only GLM 4.5 measured
LMArena Text: multi-turnNot measured1415Only GLM 4.5 measured
LMArena Text: longer queriesNot measured1412Only GLM 4.5 measured
LMArena Text: writing and languageNot measured1403Only GLM 4.5 measured
LMArena Text: entertainment and mediaNot measured1404Only GLM 4.5 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 22 boards here
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
Image generation benchmarks for Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite and GLM 4.5
BenchmarkGemini 2.5 Flash LiteGLM 4.5Leader
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

Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite$0.0003Fits in one request
GLM 4.5$0.0017Fits in one request

Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite costs less

Repository review

50K input + 3K output tokens

Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite$0.0062Fits in one request
GLM 4.5$0.037Fits in one request

Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite costs less

Agent loop

200K input + 10K output tokens

Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite$0.024Fits in one request
GLM 4.5$0.142Exceeds the context window

Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite 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 Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite and GLM 4.5
SpecificationGoogle Gemini 2.5 Flash LiteZ.ai GLM 4.5
MakerGoogleZ.ai
WeightsNo public weights listedOpen weights
ReleasedJuly 22, 2025July 25, 2025
Context window1.05M131K
Input $/Mtok$0.10$0.60
Output $/Mtok$0.40$2.20
Coding indexNot benchmarkedNot benchmarked
Independent measurements behind it00
Cost per solved taskNot computableNot computable
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite better than GLM 4.5 for coding?

Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite has the edge where output tokens cost 5.5x less, and where the context window is larger, 1.05M against 131K tokens.

Which is cheaper, Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite or GLM 4.5?

Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite costs $0.10 per million input tokens and $0.40 per million output tokens; GLM 4.5 costs $0.60 and $2.20. Cost per solved task is known for neither of them.

Which has the bigger context window, Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite or GLM 4.5?

Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite, with 1.05M tokens against 131K.

How many benchmarks is the Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite vs GLM 4.5 comparison based on?

20 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 21, 2026. Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite's coding index rests on 0 independent benchmarks and GLM 4.5's on 0. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.

Compare next