Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

GLM 4.6 vs GLM 5.1

GLM 5.1 leads GLM 4.6 on coding, 49.2 to 8.8 on the Vibe Coding Index, and GLM 4.6 costs 2.0x less per output token ($2.20 vs $4.40 per million). Updated October 22, 2026; 58 benchmarks have a result for both.

Replace GLM 4.6 Replace GLM 5.1
GLM 4.6Z.ai
Coding
8.8
Overall
33.4
Output $/M
$2.20
2
GLM 5.1Z.ai
Coding
49.2
Overall
57.5
Output $/M
$4.40
56
vs boards won of 58 shared

GLM 4.6 or GLM 5.1: which to pick

Pick GLM 5.1 for coding: it scores 49.2 on the Vibe Coding Index against 8.8 for GLM 4.6.

Pick GLM 4.6 for output tokens 2.0x cheaper ($2.20 vs $4.40 per million) and work measured by Design Arena: agents building Godot games or AIME, where it leads.

Model AGLM 4.6Z.ai8.8/1002 independent benchmarksNo cost per solved taskModel BGLM 5.1Z.ai49.2/1003 independent benchmarks$0.60 per solved task
Shared results
58
GLM 4.6 only
11
GLM 5.1 only
31
Like-for-like categories
8 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 4.6 8.8 from 2 benchmarks, GLM 5.1 49.2 from 3 benchmarks.
Widest category
Web design, 17.9 points apart on average over 7 shared benchmarks.
Widest single gap
IFBench: GLM 4.6 43.4% against GLM 5.1 76.3%, 32.9 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
Output price
GLM 4.6 $2.20 against GLM 5.1 $4.40 per million output tokens, 2.0x apart.
Context window
Both take 205K tokens.

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 4.6BarsGLM 5.1Ties
Coding09
Intelligence01
Agentic work14
Reasoning06
Math12
Knowledge08
Web design07
General019
All shared boards256
CodingLike-for-likeSix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index09
Coding benchmarks for GLM 4.6 and GLM 5.1
BenchmarkGLM 4.6GLM 5.1Leader
SWE-bench Verified68.2%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6 measured
LMArena WebDev13411508GLM 5.1
AA Coding Index45.855.8GLM 5.1
LiveCodeBench (Vals AI)81.0%81.4%GLM 5.1
SWE-bench Verified (Vals AI)Not measured76.4%Only GLM 5.1 measured
Vibe Code Bench (Vals AI)3.1%31.5%GLM 5.1
Code migration (Vals AI)Not measured25.8%Only GLM 5.1 measured
ProgramBench (Vals AI)Not measured0.0%Only GLM 5.1 measured
Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals AI)Not measured56.9%Only GLM 5.1 measured
LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run)69.5%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6 measured
SciCodeNot measured44.8%Only GLM 5.1 measured
Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run)28.8%43.2%GLM 5.1
Terminal-Bench24.5%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6 measured
WeirdMLNot measured57.1%Only GLM 5.1 measured
ALE-Bench340.8887.1GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: coding14491485GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: software and IT14551484GLM 5.1
LMArena WebDev: ReactNot measured1505Only GLM 5.1 measured
LMArena WebDev: HTML13501508GLM 5.1
Neither model has a result on the other 20 boards here
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
Intelligence benchmarks for GLM 4.6 and GLM 5.1
BenchmarkGLM 4.6GLM 5.1Leader
AA Intelligence Index18.526.1GLM 5.1
Epoch Capabilities IndexNot measured149.8Only GLM 5.1 measured
Agentic workLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index14
Agentic work benchmarks for GLM 4.6 and GLM 5.1
BenchmarkGLM 4.6GLM 5.1Leader
AA Agentic IndexNot measured23.9Only GLM 5.1 measured
Design Arena: agents building web appsNot measured1175Only GLM 5.1 measured
Design Arena: agents building full-stack apps10291167GLM 5.1
Design Arena: agents building mobile apps10961162GLM 5.1
Design Arena: agents building Android apps10841182GLM 5.1
Design Arena: agents building Godot games11801053GLM 4.6
Design Arena: agents building gamesNot measured1164Only GLM 5.1 measured
Design Arena: HTML slidesNot measured1120Only GLM 5.1 measured
Design Arena: PowerPoint slidesNot measured1163Only GLM 5.1 measured
Design Arena: spreadsheetsNot measured1315Only GLM 5.1 measured
Finance Agent (Vals AI)Not measured44.8%Only GLM 5.1 measured
Legal Research Bench (Vals AI)Not measured27.9%Only GLM 5.1 measured
τ²-Bench Telecom76.9%97.7%GLM 5.1
APEX-AgentsNot measured40.9%Only GLM 5.1 measured
Vending-Bench 2Not measured$5,634Only GLM 5.1 measured
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard (BFCL)72.4%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6 measured
BrowseComp-Plus48.2%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 24 boards here
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index06
Reasoning benchmarks for GLM 4.6 and GLM 5.1
BenchmarkGLM 4.6GLM 5.1Leader
GPQA Diamond74.5%84.5%GLM 5.1
GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run)78.0%86.8%GLM 5.1
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)14.5%30.1%GLM 5.1
GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run)Not measured89.9%Only GLM 5.1 measured
SimpleBenchNot measured55.1%Only GLM 5.1 measured
Chess puzzlesNot measured20.0%Only GLM 5.1 measured
LMArena Text: hard prompts14401473GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: expert14321478GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: hard prompts in English14451482GLM 5.1
Kagi LLM Benchmark45.7%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 12 boards here
MathLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index12
Math benchmarks for GLM 4.6 and GLM 5.1
BenchmarkGLM 4.6GLM 5.1Leader
AIME92.7%91.9%GLM 4.6
MGSM (Vals AI)89.8%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6 measured
AA Math Index86.0Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6 measured
AIME 2025 (Artificial Analysis run)86.0%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6 measured
OTIS Mock AIMENot measured93.3%Only GLM 5.1 measured
FrontierMath, tiers 1 to 3Not measured36.8%Only GLM 5.1 measured
ProofBenchNot measured22.2%Only GLM 5.1 measured
LMArena Text: math14321473GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: mathematical work14471470GLM 5.1
Neither model has a result on the other 4 boards here
KnowledgeLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index08
Knowledge benchmarks for GLM 4.6 and GLM 5.1
BenchmarkGLM 4.6GLM 5.1Leader
MMLU Pro82.2%86.9%GLM 5.1
LegalBench (Vals AI)79.6%84.4%GLM 5.1
CaseLaw (Vals AI)Not measured51.5%Only GLM 5.1 measured
CorpFin (Vals AI)56.8%64.5%GLM 5.1
TaxEval (Vals AI)66.2%71.2%GLM 5.1
MedQA (Vals AI)92.2%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6 measured
MedCode (Vals AI)Not measured41.6%Only GLM 5.1 measured
MMLU Pro (Artificial Analysis run)82.9%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6 measured
SimpleQA VerifiedNot measured34.0%Only GLM 5.1 measured
LMArena Text: science14561478GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: medicine and healthcare14551474GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: legal and government14481465GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: business and finance14161452GLM 5.1
Neither model has a result on the other 5 boards here
Web designLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index07
Web design benchmarks for GLM 4.6 and GLM 5.1
BenchmarkGLM 4.6GLM 5.1Leader
Design Arena: websites11741290GLM 5.1
Design Arena: UI components11451292GLM 5.1
Design Arena: game dev11501265GLM 5.1
Design Arena: data viz11611366GLM 5.1
Design Arena: 3D11281336GLM 5.1
Design Arena: all code categories11651268GLM 5.1
Design Arena: SVG11081218GLM 5.1
Design Arena: ASCII artNot measured1141Only GLM 5.1 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 1 board here
GeneralLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index019
General benchmarks for GLM 4.6 and GLM 5.1
BenchmarkGLM 4.6GLM 5.1Leader
Public Benefits Bench (Vals AI)Not measured61.8%Only GLM 5.1 measured
MedScribe (Vals AI)Not measured72.3%Only GLM 5.1 measured
IFBench43.4%76.3%GLM 5.1
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR)54.0%73.7%GLM 5.1
ExploitBenchNot measured18.1%Only GLM 5.1 measured
LMArena Text14401463GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: instruction following14101453GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: creative writing14121453GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: English14491476GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: non-English14261448GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: Chinese14991515GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: German14471467GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: Japanese13931435GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: Korean14001424GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: French14591470GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: Spanish14361468GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: Russian14181454GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: Polish14471449GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: multi-turn14271473GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: longer queries14221467GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: writing and language14151454GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: entertainment and media14091442GLM 5.1
Neither model has a result on the other 24 boards here
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
Image generation benchmarks for GLM 4.6 and GLM 5.1
BenchmarkGLM 4.6GLM 5.1Leader
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 4.6$0.0017Fits in one request
GLM 5.1$0.0036Fits in one request

GLM 4.6 costs less

Repository review

50K input + 3K output tokens

GLM 4.6$0.037Fits in one request
GLM 5.1$0.083Fits in one request

GLM 4.6 costs less

Agent loop

200K input + 10K output tokens

GLM 4.6$0.142Exceeds the context window
GLM 5.1$0.324Exceeds the context window

GLM 4.6 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 4.6 and GLM 5.1
SpecificationZ.ai GLM 4.6Z.ai GLM 5.1
MakerZ.aiZ.ai
WeightsOpen weightsOpen weights
ReleasedSeptember 30, 2025April 7, 2026
Context window205K205K
Input $/Mtok$0.60$1.40
Output $/Mtok$2.20$4.40
Coding index8.849.2
Independent measurements behind it23
Cost per solved taskNot computable$0.60
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is GLM 4.6 better than GLM 5.1 for coding?

Pick GLM 5.1 for coding: it scores 49.2 on the Vibe Coding Index against 8.8 for GLM 4.6. Pick GLM 4.6 for output tokens 2.0x cheaper ($2.20 vs $4.40 per million) and work measured by Design Arena: agents building Godot games or AIME, where it leads.

Which is cheaper, GLM 4.6 or GLM 5.1?

GLM 4.6 costs $0.60 per million input tokens and $2.20 per million output tokens; GLM 5.1 costs $1.40 and $4.40. Cost per solved task is known for GLM 5.1 only.

Which has the bigger context window, GLM 4.6 or GLM 5.1?

Neither: both take 205K tokens.

How many benchmarks is the GLM 4.6 vs GLM 5.1 comparison based on?

58 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 22, 2026. GLM 4.6's coding index rests on 2 independent benchmarks and GLM 5.1's on 3. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.

Compare next

Embed this comparison on your site

Free under CC BY 4.0, while the source link stays visible. Preview the frame · Terms and other embeds

<iframe src="https://llmbenchmark.ai/embed/compare/glm-4-6-vs-glm-5-1" title="GLM 4.6 vs GLM 5.1, LLMBenchmark.ai" width="100%" height="360" style="border:0;max-width:100%" loading="lazy"></iframe>
<p style="font:13px/1.4 sans-serif;margin:6px 0 0">Source: <a href="https://llmbenchmark.ai/compare/glm-4-6-vs-glm-5-1">LLMBenchmark.ai, GLM 4.6 vs GLM 5.1</a></p>