Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

Gemini 2.5 Flash vs GLM 4.5V

Updated October 21, 2026. 40 benchmarks have a result for both. Coding is ranked on the Vibe Coding Index; every other board is shown as published.

Gemini 2.5 FlashGoogle
Coding
No data
Overall
15.5
Output $/M
$2.50
40
GLM 4.5VZ.ai
Coding
No data
Overall
7.6
Output $/M
$1.80
0
vs boards won of 40 shared

Decision reading

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

Gemini 2.5 Flash has the edge where the context window is larger, 1.05M against 66K tokens.

Shared results
40
Gemini 2.5 Flash only
29
GLM 4.5V only
0
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 not benchmarked, GLM 4.5V not benchmarked.
Widest category
General, 18.2 points apart on average over 18 shared benchmarks.
Widest single gap
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR): Gemini 2.5 Flash 65.3% against GLM 4.5V 0.0%, 65.3 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
Output price
Gemini 2.5 Flash $2.50 against GLM 4.5V $1.80 per million output tokens, 1.4x apart.
Context window
Gemini 2.5 Flash takes 1.05M tokens, GLM 4.5V 66K.

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 FlashBarsGLM 4.5VTies
Coding40
Intelligence10
Agentic work10
Reasoning70
Math40
Knowledge50
General180
All shared boards400
CodingLike-for-likeSix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index40
Coding benchmarks for Gemini 2.5 Flash and GLM 4.5V
BenchmarkGemini 2.5 FlashGLM 4.5VLeader
SWE-bench Verified28.7%Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Flash measured
LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run)69.5%60.4%Gemini 2.5 Flash
Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run)13.6%6.8%Gemini 2.5 Flash
Terminal-Bench17.1%Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Flash measured
LMArena Text: coding14231347Gemini 2.5 Flash
LMArena Text: software and IT14251353Gemini 2.5 Flash
Neither model has a result on the other 32 boards here
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index10
Intelligence benchmarks for Gemini 2.5 Flash and GLM 4.5V
BenchmarkGemini 2.5 FlashGLM 4.5VLeader
AA Intelligence Index15.57.6Gemini 2.5 Flash
Epoch Capabilities Index142.9Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Flash measured
Agentic workLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index10
Agentic work benchmarks for Gemini 2.5 Flash and GLM 4.5V
BenchmarkGemini 2.5 FlashGLM 4.5VLeader
τ²-Bench Telecom31.6%22.5%Gemini 2.5 Flash
BALROG33.5%Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Flash measured
Vending-Bench 2$549Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Flash measured
Neither model has a result on the other 36 boards here
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index70
Reasoning benchmarks for Gemini 2.5 Flash and GLM 4.5V
BenchmarkGemini 2.5 FlashGLM 4.5VLeader
GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run)79.0%68.4%Gemini 2.5 Flash
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)12.1%6.3%Gemini 2.5 Flash
ARC-AGI33.3%Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Flash measured
ARC-AGI-22.5%Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Flash measured
SimpleBench41.2%Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Flash measured
LMArena Text: hard prompts14221335Gemini 2.5 Flash
LMArena Text: expert14261353Gemini 2.5 Flash
LMArena Text: hard prompts in English14201357Gemini 2.5 Flash
LMArena Vision: diagrams12451151Gemini 2.5 Flash
LMArena Vision: homework12441163Gemini 2.5 Flash
Neither model has a result on the other 11 boards here
MathLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index40
Math benchmarks for Gemini 2.5 Flash and GLM 4.5V
BenchmarkGemini 2.5 FlashGLM 4.5VLeader
AA Math Index73.373.0Gemini 2.5 Flash
AIME 2025 (Artificial Analysis run)73.3%73.0%Gemini 2.5 Flash
LMArena Text: math14111354Gemini 2.5 Flash
LMArena Text: mathematical work14221336Gemini 2.5 Flash
Neither model has a result on the other 9 boards here
KnowledgeLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index50
Knowledge benchmarks for Gemini 2.5 Flash and GLM 4.5V
BenchmarkGemini 2.5 FlashGLM 4.5VLeader
MedCode (Vals AI)40.4%Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Flash measured
MMLU Pro (Artificial Analysis run)83.2%78.8%Gemini 2.5 Flash
LMArena Text: science14331330Gemini 2.5 Flash
LMArena Text: medicine and healthcare14281349Gemini 2.5 Flash
LMArena Text: legal and government14301338Gemini 2.5 Flash
LMArena Text: business and finance14041309Gemini 2.5 Flash
Neither model has a result on the other 11 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 and GLM 4.5V
BenchmarkGemini 2.5 FlashGLM 4.5VLeader
Design Arena: websites1074Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Flash measured
Design Arena: UI components1005Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Flash measured
Design Arena: game dev1005Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Flash measured
Design Arena: data viz1060Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Flash measured
Design Arena: 3D1021Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Flash measured
Design Arena: all code categories1059Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Flash measured
Design Arena: SVG1020Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Flash measured
Neither model has a result on the other 2 boards here
GeneralLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index180
General benchmarks for Gemini 2.5 Flash and GLM 4.5V
BenchmarkGemini 2.5 FlashGLM 4.5VLeader
SAGE (Vals AI)44.8%Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Flash measured
MedScribe (Vals AI)83.0%Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Flash measured
IFBench50.3%34.2%Gemini 2.5 Flash
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR)65.3%0.0%Gemini 2.5 Flash
DTBench76.5%Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Flash measured
LMCA27.5%Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Flash measured
LMArena Text14171333Gemini 2.5 Flash
LMArena Text: instruction following14051311Gemini 2.5 Flash
LMArena Text: creative writing14001294Gemini 2.5 Flash
LMArena Vision12351154Gemini 2.5 Flash
LMArena Text: English14181362Gemini 2.5 Flash
LMArena Text: non-English14091303Gemini 2.5 Flash
LMArena Text: Chinese14491337Gemini 2.5 Flash
LMArena Text: German1417Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Flash measured
LMArena Text: Japanese1396Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Flash measured
LMArena Text: Korean1385Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Flash measured
LMArena Text: French1432Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Flash measured
LMArena Text: Spanish14221336Gemini 2.5 Flash
LMArena Text: Russian14151298Gemini 2.5 Flash
LMArena Text: Polish14131302Gemini 2.5 Flash
LMArena Text: multi-turn14081333Gemini 2.5 Flash
LMArena Text: longer queries14191305Gemini 2.5 Flash
LMArena Text: writing and language14051302Gemini 2.5 Flash
LMArena Text: entertainment and media13931303Gemini 2.5 Flash
LMArena Vision: English12391183Gemini 2.5 Flash
LMArena Vision: Chinese1284Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Flash measured
LMArena Vision: reading text12371151Gemini 2.5 Flash
LMArena Vision: humor1225Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Flash measured
LMArena Vision: captioning1277Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Flash measured
LMArena Vision: recognizing things1252Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Flash measured
LMArena Vision: creative writing1241Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Flash measured
Neither model has a result on the other 15 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 and GLM 4.5V
BenchmarkGemini 2.5 FlashGLM 4.5VLeader
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$0.0015Fits in one request
GLM 4.5V$0.0015Fits in one request

GLM 4.5V costs less

Repository review

50K input + 3K output tokens

Gemini 2.5 Flash$0.022Fits in one request
GLM 4.5V$0.035Fits in one request

Gemini 2.5 Flash costs less

Agent loop

200K input + 10K output tokens

Gemini 2.5 Flash$0.085Fits in one request
GLM 4.5V$0.138Exceeds the context window

Gemini 2.5 Flash 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 and GLM 4.5V
SpecificationGoogle Gemini 2.5 FlashZ.ai GLM 4.5V
MakerGoogleZ.ai
WeightsNo public weights listedOpen weights
ReleasedJune 17, 2025August 11, 2025
Context window1.05M66K
Input $/Mtok$0.30$0.60
Output $/Mtok$2.50$1.80
Coding indexNot benchmarkedNot benchmarked
Independent measurements behind it00
Cost per solved task$0.466Not computable
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

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

Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Gemini 2.5 Flash has the edge where the context window is larger, 1.05M against 66K tokens.

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

Gemini 2.5 Flash costs $0.30 per million input tokens and $2.50 per million output tokens; GLM 4.5V costs $0.60 and $1.80. Cost per solved task is known for Gemini 2.5 Flash only.

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

Gemini 2.5 Flash, with 1.05M tokens against 66K.

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

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

Compare next