Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

GLM 4.5V vs GPT-4o (2024-08-06)

GPT-4o (2024-08-06) leads GLM 4.5V on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index, 7.7 to 7.6, and GLM 4.5V costs 5.6x less per output token ($1.80 vs $10.00 per million). Updated October 22, 2026; 33 benchmarks have a result for both.

GLM 4.5VZ.ai
Coding
No data
Overall
No data
Output $/M
$1.80
28
GPT-4o (2024-08-06)OpenAI
Coding
No data
Overall
26.3
Output $/M
$10.00
5
vs boards won of 33 shared

GLM 4.5V or GPT-4o (2024-08-06): which to pick

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

Pick GLM 4.5V for output tokens 5.6x cheaper ($1.80 vs $10.00 per million) and work measured by Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run) or AA Intelligence Index, where it leads.

Shared results
33
GLM 4.5V only
8
GPT-4o (2024-08-06) only
25
Like-for-like categories
7 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
GLM 4.5V not benchmarked, GPT-4o (2024-08-06) not benchmarked.
Widest category
Coding, 13.3 points apart on average over 4 shared benchmarks.
Widest single gap
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR): GLM 4.5V 0.0% against GPT-4o (2024-08-06) 41.0%, 41.0 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
Output price
GLM 4.5V $1.80 against GPT-4o (2024-08-06) $10.00 per million output tokens, 5.6x apart.
Context window
GLM 4.5V takes 66K tokens, GPT-4o (2024-08-06) 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 4.5VBarsGPT-4o (2024-08-06)Ties
Coding31
Intelligence01
Agentic work01
Reasoning50
Math20
Knowledge40
General142
All shared boards285
CodingLike-for-likeSix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index31
Coding benchmarks for GLM 4.5V and GPT-4o (2024-08-06)
BenchmarkGLM 4.5VGPT-4o (2024-08-06)Leader
Aider polyglotNot measured23.1%Only GPT-4o (2024-08-06) measured
SWE-bench LiteNot measured21.7%Only GPT-4o (2024-08-06) measured
LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run)60.4%31.7%GLM 4.5V
Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run)6.8%8.3%GPT-4o (2024-08-06)
LMArena Text: coding13471283GLM 4.5V
LMArena Text: software and IT13531278GLM 4.5V
Neither model has a result on the other 33 boards here
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
Intelligence benchmarks for GLM 4.5V and GPT-4o (2024-08-06)
BenchmarkGLM 4.5VGPT-4o (2024-08-06)Leader
AA Intelligence Index7.67.7GPT-4o (2024-08-06)
Neither model has a result on the other 1 board here
Agentic workLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
Agentic work benchmarks for GLM 4.5V and GPT-4o (2024-08-06)
BenchmarkGLM 4.5VGPT-4o (2024-08-06)Leader
τ²-Bench Telecom22.5%28.9%GPT-4o (2024-08-06)
Neither model has a result on the other 40 boards here
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index50
Reasoning benchmarks for GLM 4.5V and GPT-4o (2024-08-06)
BenchmarkGLM 4.5VGPT-4o (2024-08-06)Leader
MMMU Pro (Vals AI)Not measured64.0%Only GPT-4o (2024-08-06) measured
GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run)68.4%52.1%GLM 4.5V
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)6.3%2.3%GLM 4.5V
GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run)Not measured49.2%Only GPT-4o (2024-08-06) measured
SimpleBenchNot measured17.8%Only GPT-4o (2024-08-06) measured
Chess puzzlesNot measured6.0%Only GPT-4o (2024-08-06) measured
LMArena Text: hard prompts13351264GLM 4.5V
LMArena Text: expert13531241GLM 4.5V
LMArena Text: hard prompts in English13571277GLM 4.5V
LMArena Vision: diagrams1151Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5V measured
LMArena Vision: homework1163Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5V measured
Kagi LLM Benchmark59.8%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5V measured
Neither model has a result on the other 10 boards here
MathLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index20
Math benchmarks for GLM 4.5V and GPT-4o (2024-08-06)
BenchmarkGLM 4.5VGPT-4o (2024-08-06)Leader
AIMENot measured14.0%Only GPT-4o (2024-08-06) measured
MATH 500 (Vals AI)Not measured75.2%Only GPT-4o (2024-08-06) measured
MGSM (Vals AI)Not measured90.7%Only GPT-4o (2024-08-06) measured
AA Math Index73.0Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5V measured
AIME 2025 (Artificial Analysis run)73.0%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5V measured
OTIS Mock AIMENot measured6.4%Only GPT-4o (2024-08-06) measured
FrontierMath, tiers 1 to 3Not measured0.4%Only GPT-4o (2024-08-06) measured
MATH level 5Not measured53.3%Only GPT-4o (2024-08-06) measured
LMArena Text: math13541285GLM 4.5V
LMArena Text: mathematical work13361283GLM 4.5V
Neither model has a result on the other 3 boards here
KnowledgeLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index40
Knowledge benchmarks for GLM 4.5V and GPT-4o (2024-08-06)
BenchmarkGLM 4.5VGPT-4o (2024-08-06)Leader
MMLU ProNot measured74.1%Only GPT-4o (2024-08-06) measured
LegalBench (Vals AI)Not measured80.1%Only GPT-4o (2024-08-06) measured
CorpFin (Vals AI)Not measured39.4%Only GPT-4o (2024-08-06) measured
TaxEval (Vals AI)Not measured71.1%Only GPT-4o (2024-08-06) measured
MortgageTax (Vals AI)Not measured61.0%Only GPT-4o (2024-08-06) measured
MedQA (Vals AI)Not measured88.2%Only GPT-4o (2024-08-06) measured
MMLU Pro (Artificial Analysis run)78.8%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5V measured
SimpleQA VerifiedNot measured26.0%Only GPT-4o (2024-08-06) measured
MMLUNot measured84.3%Only GPT-4o (2024-08-06) measured
LMArena Text: science13301274GLM 4.5V
LMArena Text: medicine and healthcare13491252GLM 4.5V
LMArena Text: legal and government13381275GLM 4.5V
LMArena Text: business and finance13091232GLM 4.5V
Neither model has a result on the other 5 boards here
Web designNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
Web design benchmarks for GLM 4.5V and GPT-4o (2024-08-06)
BenchmarkGLM 4.5VGPT-4o (2024-08-06)Leader
Neither model has a result on 9 boards here
GeneralLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index142
General benchmarks for GLM 4.5V and GPT-4o (2024-08-06)
BenchmarkGLM 4.5VGPT-4o (2024-08-06)Leader
IFBench34.2%36.0%GPT-4o (2024-08-06)
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR)0.0%41.0%GPT-4o (2024-08-06)
LMArena Text13331283GLM 4.5V
LMArena Text: instruction following13111267GLM 4.5V
LMArena Text: creative writing12941274GLM 4.5V
LMArena Vision11541065GLM 4.5V
LMArena Text: English13621297GLM 4.5V
LMArena Text: non-English13031262GLM 4.5V
LMArena Text: Chinese13371254GLM 4.5V
LMArena Text: GermanNot measured1257Only GPT-4o (2024-08-06) measured
LMArena Text: JapaneseNot measured1234Only GPT-4o (2024-08-06) measured
LMArena Text: KoreanNot measured1218Only GPT-4o (2024-08-06) measured
LMArena Text: FrenchNot measured1263Only GPT-4o (2024-08-06) measured
LMArena Text: Spanish13361269GLM 4.5V
LMArena Text: Russian12981272GLM 4.5V
LMArena Text: Polish1302Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5V measured
LMArena Text: multi-turn13331279GLM 4.5V
LMArena Text: longer queries13051283GLM 4.5V
LMArena Text: writing and language13021290GLM 4.5V
LMArena Text: entertainment and media13031267GLM 4.5V
LMArena Vision: English11831072GLM 4.5V
LMArena Vision: ChineseNot measured1009Only GPT-4o (2024-08-06) measured
LMArena Vision: reading text1151Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5V 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 4.5V and GPT-4o (2024-08-06)
BenchmarkGLM 4.5VGPT-4o (2024-08-06)Leader
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 4.5V$0.0015Fits in one request
GPT-4o (2024-08-06)$0.0075Fits in one request

GLM 4.5V costs less

Repository review

50K input + 3K output tokens

GLM 4.5V$0.035Fits in one request
GPT-4o (2024-08-06)$0.155Fits in one request

GLM 4.5V costs less

Agent loop

200K input + 10K output tokens

GLM 4.5V$0.138Exceeds the context window
GPT-4o (2024-08-06)$0.600Exceeds the context window

GLM 4.5V 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 4.5V and GPT-4o (2024-08-06)
SpecificationZ.ai GLM 4.5VOpenAI GPT-4o (2024-08-06)
MakerZ.aiOpenAI
WeightsOpen weightsNo public weights listed
ReleasedAugust 11, 2025August 6, 2024
Context window66K128K
Input $/Mtok$0.60$2.50
Output $/Mtok$1.80$10.00
Coding indexNot benchmarkedNot benchmarked
Independent measurements behind it00
Cost per solved taskNot computableNot computable
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is GLM 4.5V better than GPT-4o (2024-08-06) for coding?

Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Pick GLM 4.5V for output tokens 5.6x cheaper ($1.80 vs $10.00 per million) and work measured by Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run) or AA Intelligence Index, where it leads.

Which is cheaper, GLM 4.5V or GPT-4o (2024-08-06)?

GLM 4.5V costs $0.60 per million input tokens and $1.80 per million output tokens; GPT-4o (2024-08-06) costs $2.50 and $10.00. Cost per solved task is known for neither of them.

Which has the bigger context window, GLM 4.5V or GPT-4o (2024-08-06)?

GPT-4o (2024-08-06), with 128K tokens against 66K.

How many benchmarks is the GLM 4.5V vs GPT-4o (2024-08-06) comparison based on?

33 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 22, 2026. GLM 4.5V's coding index rests on 0 independent benchmarks and GPT-4o (2024-08-06)'s on 0. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.

Compare next