Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

GLM 4.6V vs GPT-5.1-Codex-Mini

GPT-5.1-Codex-Mini leads GLM 4.6V on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index, 20.4 to 11.2, and GLM 4.6V costs 2.2x less per output token ($0.90 vs $2.00 per million). Updated October 21, 2026; 11 benchmarks have a result for both.

GLM 4.6VZ.ai
Coding
No data
Overall
11.2
Output $/M
$0.90
0
GPT-5.1-Codex-MiniOpenAI
Coding
No data
Overall
20.4
Output $/M
$2.00
11
vs boards won of 11 shared

GLM 4.6V or GPT-5.1-Codex-Mini: which to pick

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

Pick GLM 4.6V for output tokens 2.2x cheaper ($0.90 vs $2.00 per million) and work measured by LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run) or Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run), where it leads.

Shared results
11
GLM 4.6V only
27
GPT-5.1-Codex-Mini only
11
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 4.6V not benchmarked, GPT-5.1-Codex-Mini not benchmarked.
Widest category
Agentic work, 31.3 points apart on average over 1 shared benchmark.
Widest single gap
LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run): GLM 4.6V 41.1% against GPT-5.1-Codex-Mini 83.6%, 42.5 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
Output price
GLM 4.6V $0.90 against GPT-5.1-Codex-Mini $2.00 per million output tokens, 2.2x apart.
Context window
GLM 4.6V takes 131K tokens, GPT-5.1-Codex-Mini 400K.

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 4.6VBarsGPT-5.1-Codex-MiniTies
Coding02
Intelligence01
Agentic work01
Reasoning02
Math02
Knowledge01
General02
All shared boards011
CodingLike-for-likeSix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index02
Coding benchmarks for GLM 4.6V and GPT-5.1-Codex-Mini
BenchmarkGLM 4.6VGPT-5.1-Codex-MiniLeader
LMArena WebDevNot measured1244Only GPT-5.1-Codex-Mini measured
LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run)41.1%83.6%GPT-5.1-Codex-Mini
Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run)14.4%33.3%GPT-5.1-Codex-Mini
Terminal-BenchNot measured61.6%Only GPT-5.1-Codex-Mini measured
LMArena Text: coding1389Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6V measured
LMArena Text: software and IT1391Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6V measured
LMArena WebDev: HTMLNot measured1253Only GPT-5.1-Codex-Mini measured
Neither model has a result on the other 31 boards here
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
Intelligence benchmarks for GLM 4.6V and GPT-5.1-Codex-Mini
BenchmarkGLM 4.6VGPT-5.1-Codex-MiniLeader
AA Intelligence Index11.220.4GPT-5.1-Codex-Mini
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 4.6V and GPT-5.1-Codex-Mini
BenchmarkGLM 4.6VGPT-5.1-Codex-MiniLeader
τ²-Bench Telecom31.6%62.9%GPT-5.1-Codex-Mini
Neither model has a result on the other 38 boards here
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index02
Reasoning benchmarks for GLM 4.6V and GPT-5.1-Codex-Mini
BenchmarkGLM 4.6VGPT-5.1-Codex-MiniLeader
GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run)71.9%81.3%GPT-5.1-Codex-Mini
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)9.6%18.5%GPT-5.1-Codex-Mini
LMArena Text: hard prompts1367Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6V measured
LMArena Text: expert1371Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6V measured
LMArena Text: hard prompts in English1391Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6V measured
LMArena Vision: diagrams1182Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6V measured
LMArena Vision: homework1155Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6V measured
Neither model has a result on the other 14 boards here
MathLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index02
Math benchmarks for GLM 4.6V and GPT-5.1-Codex-Mini
BenchmarkGLM 4.6VGPT-5.1-Codex-MiniLeader
AA Math Index85.391.7GPT-5.1-Codex-Mini
AIME 2025 (Artificial Analysis run)85.3%91.7%GPT-5.1-Codex-Mini
Neither model has a result on the other 11 boards here
KnowledgeLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
Knowledge benchmarks for GLM 4.6V and GPT-5.1-Codex-Mini
BenchmarkGLM 4.6VGPT-5.1-Codex-MiniLeader
MMLU Pro (Artificial Analysis run)79.9%82.0%GPT-5.1-Codex-Mini
LMArena Text: science1389Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6V measured
LMArena Text: medicine and healthcare1389Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6V measured
LMArena Text: legal and government1393Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6V measured
LMArena Text: business and finance1359Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6V measured
Neither model has a result on the other 12 boards here
Web designDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index8 boards, none shared
Web design benchmarks for GLM 4.6V and GPT-5.1-Codex-Mini
BenchmarkGLM 4.6VGPT-5.1-Codex-MiniLeader
Design Arena: websitesNot measured1111Only GPT-5.1-Codex-Mini measured
Design Arena: UI componentsNot measured1081Only GPT-5.1-Codex-Mini measured
Design Arena: game devNot measured1092Only GPT-5.1-Codex-Mini measured
Design Arena: data vizNot measured1097Only GPT-5.1-Codex-Mini measured
Design Arena: 3DNot measured988Only GPT-5.1-Codex-Mini measured
Design Arena: all code categoriesNot measured1094Only GPT-5.1-Codex-Mini measured
Design Arena: SVGNot measured978Only GPT-5.1-Codex-Mini measured
Design Arena: ASCII artNot measured1105Only GPT-5.1-Codex-Mini measured
Neither model has a result on the other 1 board here
GeneralLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index02
General benchmarks for GLM 4.6V and GPT-5.1-Codex-Mini
BenchmarkGLM 4.6VGPT-5.1-Codex-MiniLeader
IFBench30.1%67.9%GPT-5.1-Codex-Mini
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR)48.7%66.7%GPT-5.1-Codex-Mini
LMArena Text1376Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6V measured
LMArena Text: instruction following1350Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6V measured
LMArena Text: creative writing1347Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6V measured
LMArena Vision1164Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6V measured
LMArena Text: English1395Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6V measured
LMArena Text: non-English1358Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6V measured
LMArena Text: Chinese1425Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6V measured
LMArena Text: Russian1339Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6V measured
LMArena Text: multi-turn1359Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6V measured
LMArena Text: longer queries1357Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6V measured
LMArena Text: writing and language1347Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6V measured
LMArena Text: entertainment and media1343Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6V measured
LMArena Vision: English1179Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6V measured
LMArena Vision: Chinese1217Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6V measured
LMArena Vision: reading text1171Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6V measured
LMArena Vision: creative writing1113Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6V measured
Neither model has a result on the other 28 boards here
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
Image generation benchmarks for GLM 4.6V and GPT-5.1-Codex-Mini
BenchmarkGLM 4.6VGPT-5.1-Codex-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 4.6V$0.0008Fits in one request
GPT-5.1-Codex-Mini$0.0013Fits in one request

GLM 4.6V costs less

Repository review

50K input + 3K output tokens

GLM 4.6V$0.018Fits in one request
GPT-5.1-Codex-Mini$0.018Fits in one request

GLM 4.6V costs less

Agent loop

200K input + 10K output tokens

GLM 4.6V$0.069Exceeds the context window
GPT-5.1-Codex-Mini$0.070Fits in one request

GLM 4.6V 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 4.6V and GPT-5.1-Codex-Mini
SpecificationZ.ai GLM 4.6VOpenAI GPT-5.1-Codex-Mini
MakerZ.aiOpenAI
WeightsOpen weightsNo public weights listed
ReleasedDecember 8, 2025November 13, 2025
Context window131K400K
Input $/Mtok$0.30$0.25
Output $/Mtok$0.90$2.00
Coding indexNot benchmarkedNot benchmarked
Independent measurements behind it01
Cost per solved taskNot computableNot computable
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is GLM 4.6V better than GPT-5.1-Codex-Mini for coding?

Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Pick GLM 4.6V for output tokens 2.2x cheaper ($0.90 vs $2.00 per million) and work measured by LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run) or Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run), where it leads.

Which is cheaper, GLM 4.6V or GPT-5.1-Codex-Mini?

GLM 4.6V costs $0.30 per million input tokens and $0.90 per million output tokens; GPT-5.1-Codex-Mini costs $0.25 and $2.00. Cost per solved task is known for neither of them.

Which has the bigger context window, GLM 4.6V or GPT-5.1-Codex-Mini?

GPT-5.1-Codex-Mini, with 400K tokens against 131K.

How many benchmarks is the GLM 4.6V vs GPT-5.1-Codex-Mini comparison based on?

11 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 21, 2026. GLM 4.6V's coding index rests on 0 independent benchmarks and GPT-5.1-Codex-Mini's on 1. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.

Compare next