Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite vs GLM 5 Turbo

Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite costs 2.7x less per output token than GLM 5 Turbo ($1.50 vs $4.00 per million). Updated October 22, 2026; 6 benchmarks have a result for both.

Gemini 3.1 Flash LiteGoogle
Coding
No data
Overall
No data
Output $/M
$1.50
2
GLM 5 TurboZ.ai
Coding
No data
Overall
No data
Output $/M
$4.00
4
vs boards won of 6 shared

Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite or GLM 5 Turbo: which to pick

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

Pick Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite for output tokens 2.7x cheaper ($1.50 vs $4.00 per million) and a larger context window (1.05M against 203K tokens).

Shared results
6
Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite only
10
GLM 5 Turbo only
10
Like-for-like categories
4 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
Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite not benchmarked, GLM 5 Turbo not benchmarked.
Widest category
Agentic work, 67.3 points apart on average over 1 shared benchmark.
Widest single gap
τ²-Bench Telecom: Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite 31.3% against GLM 5 Turbo 98.5%, 67.3 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
Output price
Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite $1.50 against GLM 5 Turbo $4.00 per million output tokens, 2.7x apart.
Context window
Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite takes 1.05M tokens, GLM 5 Turbo 203K.

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 3.1 Flash LiteBarsGLM 5 TurboTies
Coding01
Agentic work01
Reasoning02
General20
All shared boards24
CodingLike-for-likeSix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index01
Coding benchmarks for Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite and GLM 5 Turbo
BenchmarkGemini 3.1 Flash LiteGLM 5 TurboLeader
SciCode43.4%Not measuredOnly Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite measured
Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run)24.2%33.3%GLM 5 Turbo
WeirdML52.2%Not measuredOnly Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite measured
ALE-BenchNot measured634.0Only GLM 5 Turbo measured
Neither model has a result on the other 35 boards here
IntelligenceDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index2 boards, none shared
Intelligence benchmarks for Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite and GLM 5 Turbo
BenchmarkGemini 3.1 Flash LiteGLM 5 TurboLeader
AA Intelligence IndexNot measured26.6Only GLM 5 Turbo measured
Epoch Capabilities Index144.3Not measuredOnly Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite measured
Agentic workLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
Agentic work benchmarks for Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite and GLM 5 Turbo
BenchmarkGemini 3.1 Flash LiteGLM 5 TurboLeader
τ²-Bench Telecom31.3%98.5%GLM 5 Turbo
DeepResearch Bench37.3%Not measuredOnly Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite measured
Neither model has a result on the other 39 boards here
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index02
Reasoning benchmarks for Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite and GLM 5 Turbo
BenchmarkGemini 3.1 Flash LiteGLM 5 TurboLeader
GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run)82.2%84.7%GLM 5 Turbo
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)17.2%27.8%GLM 5 Turbo
GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run)81.8%Not measuredOnly Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite measured
Kagi LLM Benchmark67.2%Not measuredOnly Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite measured
Neither model has a result on the other 18 boards here
MathDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index2 boards, none shared
Math benchmarks for Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite and GLM 5 Turbo
BenchmarkGemini 3.1 Flash LiteGLM 5 TurboLeader
OTIS Mock AIME80.0%Not measuredOnly Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite measured
FrontierMath, tiers 1 to 327.7%Not measuredOnly Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite measured
Neither model has a result on the other 11 boards here
KnowledgeNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
Knowledge benchmarks for Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite and GLM 5 Turbo
BenchmarkGemini 3.1 Flash LiteGLM 5 TurboLeader
Neither model has a result on 18 boards here
Web designDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index8 boards, none shared
Web design benchmarks for Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite and GLM 5 Turbo
BenchmarkGemini 3.1 Flash LiteGLM 5 TurboLeader
Design Arena: websitesNot measured1262Only GLM 5 Turbo measured
Design Arena: UI componentsNot measured1260Only GLM 5 Turbo measured
Design Arena: game devNot measured1248Only GLM 5 Turbo measured
Design Arena: data vizNot measured1264Only GLM 5 Turbo measured
Design Arena: 3DNot measured1247Only GLM 5 Turbo measured
Design Arena: all code categoriesNot measured1261Only GLM 5 Turbo measured
Design Arena: SVGNot measured1205Only GLM 5 Turbo measured
Design Arena: ASCII artNot measured1160Only GLM 5 Turbo measured
Neither model has a result on the other 1 board here
GeneralLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index20
General benchmarks for Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite and GLM 5 Turbo
BenchmarkGemini 3.1 Flash LiteGLM 5 TurboLeader
IFBench77.2%73.2%Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR)74.3%71.7%Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite
DTBench76.8%Not measuredOnly Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite measured
LMCA35.0%Not measuredOnly Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite measured
Neither model has a result on the other 42 boards here
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
Image generation benchmarks for Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite and GLM 5 Turbo
BenchmarkGemini 3.1 Flash LiteGLM 5 TurboLeader
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 3.1 Flash Lite$0.0010Fits in one request
GLM 5 Turbo$0.0032Fits in one request

Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite costs less

Repository review

50K input + 3K output tokens

Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite$0.017Fits in one request
GLM 5 Turbo$0.072Fits in one request

Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite costs less

Agent loop

200K input + 10K output tokens

Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite$0.065Fits in one request
GLM 5 Turbo$0.280Exceeds the context window

Gemini 3.1 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 3.1 Flash Lite and GLM 5 Turbo
SpecificationGoogle Gemini 3.1 Flash LiteZ.ai GLM 5 Turbo
MakerGoogleZ.ai
WeightsNo public weights listedNo public weights listed
ReleasedMay 7, 2026March 15, 2026
Context window1.05M203K
Input $/Mtok$0.25$1.20
Output $/Mtok$1.50$4.00
Coding indexNot benchmarkedNot benchmarked
Independent measurements behind it00
Cost per solved taskNot computableNot computable
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite better than GLM 5 Turbo for coding?

Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Pick Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite for output tokens 2.7x cheaper ($1.50 vs $4.00 per million) and a larger context window (1.05M against 203K tokens).

Which is cheaper, Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite or GLM 5 Turbo?

Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite costs $0.25 per million input tokens and $1.50 per million output tokens; GLM 5 Turbo costs $1.20 and $4.00. Cost per solved task is known for neither of them.

Which has the bigger context window, Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite or GLM 5 Turbo?

Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite, with 1.05M tokens against 203K.

How many benchmarks is the Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite vs GLM 5 Turbo comparison based on?

6 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 22, 2026. Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite's coding index rests on 0 independent benchmarks and GLM 5 Turbo's on 0. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.

Compare next