Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

GLM 4.5 vs GPT-4o-mini

Updated October 21, 2026. 17 benchmarks have a result for both. Coding is ranked on the Vibe Coding Index; every other board is shown as published.

GLM 4.5Z.ai
Coding
No data
Overall
12.8
Output $/M
$2.20
17
GPT-4o-miniOpenAI
Coding
No data
Overall
6.7
Output $/M
$0.60
0
vs boards won of 17 shared

Decision reading

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

GLM 4.5 has the edge where the context window is larger, 131K against 128K tokens.

Shared results
17
GLM 4.5 only
43
GPT-4o-mini only
10
Like-for-like categories
6 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
GLM 4.5 not benchmarked, GPT-4o-mini not benchmarked.
Widest category
Coding, 45.7 points apart on average over 2 shared benchmarks.
Widest single gap
AIME: GLM 4.5 86.7% against GPT-4o-mini 11.5%, 75.2 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
Output price
GLM 4.5 $2.20 against GPT-4o-mini $0.60 per million output tokens, 3.7x apart.
Context window
GLM 4.5 takes 131K tokens, GPT-4o-mini 128K.

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
CategoryGLM 4.5BarsGPT-4o-miniTies
Coding20
Intelligence10
Reasoning30
Math50
Knowledge50
General10
All shared boards170
CodingLike-for-likeSix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index20
Coding benchmarks for GLM 4.5 and GPT-4o-mini
BenchmarkGLM 4.5GPT-4o-miniLeader
SWE-bench Verified64.2%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5 measured
AA Coding IndexNot measured11.4Only GPT-4o-mini measured
LiveCodeBench (Vals AI)67.5%26.4%GLM 4.5
LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run)73.8%23.4%GLM 4.5
Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run)22.0%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5 measured
WeirdML40.6%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5 measured
ALE-Bench344.8Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5 measured
LMArena Text: coding1434Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5 measured
LMArena Text: software and IT1440Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 29 boards here
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index10
Intelligence benchmarks for GLM 4.5 and GPT-4o-mini
BenchmarkGLM 4.5GPT-4o-miniLeader
AA Intelligence Index12.86.7GLM 4.5
Epoch Capabilities IndexNot measured126.5Only GPT-4o-mini measured
Agentic workDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index1 board, none shared
Agentic work benchmarks for GLM 4.5 and GPT-4o-mini
BenchmarkGLM 4.5GPT-4o-miniLeader
τ²-Bench Telecom43.0%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 38 boards here
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index30
Reasoning benchmarks for GLM 4.5 and GPT-4o-mini
BenchmarkGLM 4.5GPT-4o-miniLeader
GPQA Diamond72.2%44.2%GLM 4.5
MMMU Pro (Vals AI)Not measured56.6%Only GPT-4o-mini measured
GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run)78.2%42.6%GLM 4.5
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)13.0%4.2%GLM 4.5
ARC-AGI-2Not measured0.0%Only GPT-4o-mini measured
LMArena Text: hard prompts1429Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5 measured
LMArena Text: expert1433Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5 measured
LMArena Text: hard prompts in English1429Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 13 boards here
MathLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index50
Math benchmarks for GLM 4.5 and GPT-4o-mini
BenchmarkGLM 4.5GPT-4o-miniLeader
AIME86.7%11.5%GLM 4.5
MATH 500 (Vals AI)94.0%72.6%GLM 4.5
MGSM (Vals AI)90.8%86.2%GLM 4.5
AA Math Index73.714.7GLM 4.5
AIME 2025 (Artificial Analysis run)73.7%14.7%GLM 4.5
GSM8KNot measured91.3%Only GPT-4o-mini measured
LMArena Text: math1427Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5 measured
LMArena Text: mathematical work1430Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 5 boards here
KnowledgeLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index50
Knowledge benchmarks for GLM 4.5 and GPT-4o-mini
BenchmarkGLM 4.5GPT-4o-miniLeader
MMLU Pro81.2%62.7%GLM 4.5
LegalBench (Vals AI)75.6%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5 measured
CorpFin (Vals AI)61.0%45.5%GLM 4.5
TaxEval (Vals AI)72.4%60.5%GLM 4.5
MortgageTax (Vals AI)Not measured54.5%Only GPT-4o-mini measured
MedQA (Vals AI)90.0%72.4%GLM 4.5
MMLU Pro (Artificial Analysis run)83.5%64.8%GLM 4.5
MMLUNot measured81.8%Only GPT-4o-mini measured
LMArena Text: science1444Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5 measured
LMArena Text: medicine and healthcare1455Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5 measured
LMArena Text: legal and government1438Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5 measured
LMArena Text: business and finance1420Not measuredOnly 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 GLM 4.5 and GPT-4o-mini
BenchmarkGLM 4.5GPT-4o-miniLeader
Design Arena: websites1170Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5 measured
Design Arena: UI components1144Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5 measured
Design Arena: game dev1145Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5 measured
Design Arena: data viz1159Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5 measured
Design Arena: 3D1170Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5 measured
Design Arena: all code categories1165Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5 measured
Design Arena: SVG1096Not measuredOnly 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 index10
General benchmarks for GLM 4.5 and GPT-4o-mini
BenchmarkGLM 4.5GPT-4o-miniLeader
IFBench44.1%31.0%GLM 4.5
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR)52.7%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5 measured
DTBenchNot measured54.4%Only GPT-4o-mini measured
LMCANot measured10.4%Only GPT-4o-mini measured
Creative writing (Lech Mazur)73.4%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5 measured
PIQANot measured88.7%Only GPT-4o-mini measured
LMArena Text1430Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5 measured
LMArena Text: instruction following1404Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5 measured
LMArena Text: creative writing1395Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5 measured
LMArena Text: English1437Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5 measured
LMArena Text: non-English1417Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5 measured
LMArena Text: Chinese1465Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5 measured
LMArena Text: German1407Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5 measured
LMArena Text: Japanese1415Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5 measured
LMArena Text: Korean1380Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5 measured
LMArena Text: French1418Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5 measured
LMArena Text: Spanish1454Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5 measured
LMArena Text: Russian1413Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5 measured
LMArena Text: Polish1422Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5 measured
LMArena Text: multi-turn1415Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5 measured
LMArena Text: longer queries1412Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5 measured
LMArena Text: writing and language1403Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5 measured
LMArena Text: entertainment and media1404Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 23 boards here
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
Image generation benchmarks for GLM 4.5 and GPT-4o-mini
BenchmarkGLM 4.5GPT-4o-miniLeader
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

GLM 4.5$0.0017Fits in one request
GPT-4o-mini$0.0004Fits in one request

GPT-4o-mini costs less

Repository review

50K input + 3K output tokens

GLM 4.5$0.037Fits in one request
GPT-4o-mini$0.0093Fits in one request

GPT-4o-mini costs less

Agent loop

200K input + 10K output tokens

GLM 4.5$0.142Exceeds the context window
GPT-4o-mini$0.036Exceeds the context window

GPT-4o-mini 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 GLM 4.5 and GPT-4o-mini
SpecificationZ.ai GLM 4.5OpenAI GPT-4o-mini
MakerZ.aiOpenAI
WeightsOpen weightsNo public weights listed
ReleasedJuly 25, 2025July 18, 2024
Context window131K128K
Input $/Mtok$0.60$0.15
Output $/Mtok$2.20$0.60
Coding indexNot benchmarkedNot benchmarked
Independent measurements behind it00
Cost per solved taskNot computableNot computable
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is GLM 4.5 better than GPT-4o-mini for coding?

Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. GLM 4.5 has the edge where the context window is larger, 131K against 128K tokens.

Which is cheaper, GLM 4.5 or GPT-4o-mini?

GLM 4.5 costs $0.60 per million input tokens and $2.20 per million output tokens; GPT-4o-mini costs $0.15 and $0.60. Cost per solved task is known for neither of them.

Which has the bigger context window, GLM 4.5 or GPT-4o-mini?

GLM 4.5, with 131K tokens against 128K.

How many benchmarks is the GLM 4.5 vs GPT-4o-mini comparison based on?

17 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 21, 2026. GLM 4.5's coding index rests on 0 independent benchmarks and GPT-4o-mini's on 0. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.

Compare next