GLM 5.1 vs GPT-4.1

GLM 5.1 leads GPT-4.1 on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index, 26.1 to 12.7, and GLM 5.1 costs 1.8x less per output token ($4.40 vs $8.00 per million). Updated October 22, 2026; 58 benchmarks have a result for both.

Replace GLM 5.1 Replace GPT-4.1

GLM 5.1Z.ai

Coding: 49.2
Overall: 57.5
Output $/M: $4.40

GPT-4.1OpenAI

Coding: No data
Overall: 36.5
Output $/M: $8.00

vs boards won of 58 shared

GLM 5.1 or GPT-4.1: which to pick

Only GLM 5.1 has a coding score, 49.2 on the Vibe Coding Index; GPT-4.1 has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding.

Pick GPT-4.1 for a lower cost per solved task ($0.37 against $0.60) and a larger context window (1.05M against 205K tokens).

Model AGLM 5.1Z.ai49.2/1003 independent benchmarks$0.60 per solved task Model BGPT-4.1OpenAINot benchmarkedNo coding benchmark$0.37 per solved task

583134

Shared results: 58
GLM 5.1 only: 31
GPT-4.1 only: 34
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.

Coding
Vibe Coding Index, six public coding benchmarks
No call
Only GLM 5.1 has a coding score, so no call is made.
One side not measured
Intelligence
AA Intelligence Index
GLM 5.1
GLM 5.1 leads, 26.1 against 12.7.
Same board, both measured
Agentic work
AA Agentic Index
No call
Only GLM 5.1 has a AA Agentic Index result, 23.9.
Directional only
Reasoning
GPQA Diamond
GLM 5.1
GLM 5.1 leads, 84.5% against 65.4%.
Same board, both measured
Math
AIME
GLM 5.1
GLM 5.1 leads, 91.9% against 39.6%.
Same board, both measured
Knowledge
MMLU Pro
GLM 5.1
GLM 5.1 leads, 86.9% against 80.5%.
Same board, both measured
Web design
Design Arena: websites
GLM 5.1
GLM 5.1 leads, 1290 against 1038.
Same board, both measured
Long documents
Listed context window
GPT-4.1
GPT-4.1 takes 1.05M tokens against 205K.
Listed by OpenRouter
Everyday cost
1K input + 500 output tokens
GLM 5.1
GLM 5.1 $0.0036, GPT-4.1 $0.0060 per turn.
List prices
Cost per solved task
One SWE-bench Verified task, solved
GPT-4.1
GLM 5.1 $0.60, GPT-4.1 $0.37.
Published attempt cost and pass rate

At a glance

Coding index: GLM 5.1 49.2 from 3 benchmarks, GPT-4.1 not benchmarked.
Widest category: Agentic work, 50.6 points apart on average over 1 shared benchmark.
Widest single gap: Design Arena: 3D: GLM 5.1 1336 against GPT-4.1 849, 60.9 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
Output price: GLM 5.1 $4.40 against GPT-4.1 $8.00 per million output tokens, 1.8x apart.
Context window: GLM 5.1 takes 205K tokens, GPT-4.1 1.05M.

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
Category	GLM 5.1	GPT-4.1
Coding	6	0
Intelligence	2	0
Agentic work	1	0
Reasoning	9	0
Math	5	0
Knowledge	8	2
Web design	6	0
General	19	0
All shared boards	56	2

CodingLike-for-likeSix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index60

Coding benchmarks for GLM 5.1 and GPT-4.1
Benchmark	GLM 5.1	GPT-4.1	Leader
Aider polyglot	Not measured	52.4%	Only GPT-4.1 measured
SWE-bench Verified	Not measured	39.6%	Only GPT-4.1 measured
SWE-bench Multimodal	Not measured	31.1%	Only GPT-4.1 measured
LMArena WebDev	1508	Not measured	Only GLM 5.1 measured
AA Coding Index	55.8	Not measured	Only GLM 5.1 measured
LiveCodeBench (Vals AI)	81.4%	54.7%	GLM 5.1
SWE-bench Verified (Vals AI)	76.4%	Not measured	Only GLM 5.1 measured
Vibe Code Bench (Vals AI)	31.5%	Not measured	Only GLM 5.1 measured
Code migration (Vals AI)	25.8%	Not measured	Only GLM 5.1 measured
ProgramBench (Vals AI)	0.0%	Not measured	Only GLM 5.1 measured
Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals AI)	56.9%	Not measured	Only GLM 5.1 measured
LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run)	Not measured	45.7%	Only GPT-4.1 measured
SciCode	44.8%	Not measured	Only GLM 5.1 measured
Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run)	43.2%	13.6%	GLM 5.1
WeirdML	57.1%	39.0%	GLM 5.1
ALE-Bench	887.1	558.1	GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: coding	1485	1390	GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: software and IT	1484	1391	GLM 5.1
LMArena WebDev: React	1505	Not measured	Only GLM 5.1 measured
LMArena WebDev: HTML	1508	Not measured	Only GLM 5.1 measured
SciCode	Not measured	4.6%	Only GPT-4.1 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 18 boards here

IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index20

Intelligence benchmarks for GLM 5.1 and GPT-4.1
Benchmark	GLM 5.1	GPT-4.1	Leader
AA Intelligence Index	26.1	12.7	GLM 5.1
Epoch Capabilities Index	149.8	136.7	GLM 5.1

Agentic workLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index10

Agentic work benchmarks for GLM 5.1 and GPT-4.1
Benchmark	GLM 5.1	GPT-4.1	Leader
AA Agentic Index	23.9	Not measured	Only GLM 5.1 measured
Design Arena: agents building web apps	1175	Not measured	Only GLM 5.1 measured
Design Arena: agents building full-stack apps	1167	Not measured	Only GLM 5.1 measured
Design Arena: agents building mobile apps	1162	Not measured	Only GLM 5.1 measured
Design Arena: agents building Android apps	1182	Not measured	Only GLM 5.1 measured
Design Arena: agents building Godot games	1053	Not measured	Only GLM 5.1 measured
Design Arena: agents building games	1164	Not measured	Only GLM 5.1 measured
Design Arena: HTML slides	1120	Not measured	Only GLM 5.1 measured
Design Arena: PowerPoint slides	1163	Not measured	Only GLM 5.1 measured
Design Arena: spreadsheets	1315	Not measured	Only GLM 5.1 measured
Finance Agent (Vals AI)	44.8%	Not measured	Only GLM 5.1 measured
Legal Research Bench (Vals AI)	27.9%	Not measured	Only GLM 5.1 measured
τ²-Bench Telecom	97.7%	47.1%	GLM 5.1
APEX-Agents	40.9%	Not measured	Only GLM 5.1 measured
Vending-Bench 2	$5,634	Not measured	Only GLM 5.1 measured
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard (BFCL)	Not measured	54.0%	Only GPT-4.1 measured
BrowseComp-Plus	Not measured	36.4%	Only GPT-4.1 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 24 boards here

ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index90

Reasoning benchmarks for GLM 5.1 and GPT-4.1
Benchmark	GLM 5.1	GPT-4.1	Leader
GPQA Diamond	84.5%	65.4%	GLM 5.1
MMMU Pro (Vals AI)	Not measured	72.4%	Only GPT-4.1 measured
GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run)	86.8%	66.6%	GLM 5.1
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)	30.1%	4.2%	GLM 5.1
GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run)	89.9%	66.9%	GLM 5.1
ARC-AGI	Not measured	5.5%	Only GPT-4.1 measured
ARC-AGI-2	Not measured	0.4%	Only GPT-4.1 measured
SimpleBench	55.1%	27.0%	GLM 5.1
Chess puzzles	20.0%	3.0%	GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: hard prompts	1473	1384	GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: expert	1478	1364	GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: hard prompts in English	1482	1393	GLM 5.1
LMArena Vision: diagrams	Not measured	1215	Only GPT-4.1 measured
LMArena Vision: homework	Not measured	1248	Only GPT-4.1 measured
Kagi LLM Benchmark	Not measured	52.3%	Only GPT-4.1 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 7 boards here

MathLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index50

Math benchmarks for GLM 5.1 and GPT-4.1
Benchmark	GLM 5.1	GPT-4.1	Leader
AIME	91.9%	39.6%	GLM 5.1
MATH 500 (Vals AI)	Not measured	87.2%	Only GPT-4.1 measured
MGSM (Vals AI)	Not measured	87.7%	Only GPT-4.1 measured
AA Math Index	Not measured	34.7	Only GPT-4.1 measured
AIME 2025 (Artificial Analysis run)	Not measured	34.7%	Only GPT-4.1 measured
OTIS Mock AIME	93.3%	38.3%	GLM 5.1
FrontierMath, tiers 1 to 3	36.8%	6.0%	GLM 5.1
ProofBench	22.2%	Not measured	Only GLM 5.1 measured
MATH level 5	Not measured	83.0%	Only GPT-4.1 measured
LMArena Text: math	1473	1369	GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: mathematical work	1470	1360	GLM 5.1
Neither model has a result on the other 2 boards here

KnowledgeLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index82

Knowledge benchmarks for GLM 5.1 and GPT-4.1
Benchmark	GLM 5.1	GPT-4.1	Leader
MMLU Pro	86.9%	80.5%	GLM 5.1
LegalBench (Vals AI)	84.4%	83.1%	GLM 5.1
CaseLaw (Vals AI)	51.5%	69.9%	GPT-4.1
CorpFin (Vals AI)	64.5%	63.0%	GLM 5.1
TaxEval (Vals AI)	71.2%	75.1%	GPT-4.1
MortgageTax (Vals AI)	Not measured	65.9%	Only GPT-4.1 measured
MedQA (Vals AI)	Not measured	91.2%	Only GPT-4.1 measured
MedCode (Vals AI)	41.6%	Not measured	Only GLM 5.1 measured
MMLU Pro (Artificial Analysis run)	Not measured	80.6%	Only GPT-4.1 measured
SimpleQA Verified	34.0%	31.1%	GLM 5.1
GeoBench	Not measured	72.0%	Only GPT-4.1 measured
LMArena Text: science	1478	1382	GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: medicine and healthcare	1474	1379	GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: legal and government	1465	1399	GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: business and finance	1452	1369	GLM 5.1
FACTS Benchmark Suite	Not measured	45.8%	Only GPT-4.1 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 2 boards here

Web designLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index60

Web design benchmarks for GLM 5.1 and GPT-4.1
Benchmark	GLM 5.1	GPT-4.1	Leader
Design Arena: websites	1290	1038	GLM 5.1
Design Arena: UI components	1292	997	GLM 5.1
Design Arena: game dev	1265	1079	GLM 5.1
Design Arena: data viz	1366	1104	GLM 5.1
Design Arena: 3D	1336	849	GLM 5.1
Design Arena: all code categories	1268	1025	GLM 5.1
Design Arena: SVG	1218	Not measured	Only GLM 5.1 measured
Design Arena: ASCII art	1141	Not measured	Only 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 index190

General benchmarks for GLM 5.1 and GPT-4.1
Benchmark	GLM 5.1	GPT-4.1	Leader
Public Benefits Bench (Vals AI)	61.8%	Not measured	Only GLM 5.1 measured
MedScribe (Vals AI)	72.3%	Not measured	Only GLM 5.1 measured
IFBench	76.3%	43.0%	GLM 5.1
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR)	73.7%	68.3%	GLM 5.1
DTBench	Not measured	68.3%	Only GPT-4.1 measured
LMCA	Not measured	25.6%	Only GPT-4.1 measured
Fiction.LiveBench	Not measured	63.9%	Only GPT-4.1 measured
ExploitBench	18.1%	Not measured	Only GLM 5.1 measured
LMArena Text	1463	1383	GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: instruction following	1453	1367	GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: creative writing	1453	1363	GLM 5.1
LMArena Vision	Not measured	1210	Only GPT-4.1 measured
LMArena Text: English	1476	1392	GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: non-English	1448	1370	GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: Chinese	1515	1382	GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: German	1467	1381	GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: Japanese	1435	1319	GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: Korean	1424	1338	GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: French	1470	1382	GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: Spanish	1468	1376	GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: Russian	1454	1377	GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: Polish	1449	1389	GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: multi-turn	1473	1397	GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: longer queries	1467	1385	GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: writing and language	1454	1371	GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: entertainment and media	1442	1365	GLM 5.1
LMArena Vision: English	Not measured	1209	Only GPT-4.1 measured
LMArena Vision: Chinese	Not measured	1226	Only GPT-4.1 measured
LMArena Vision: reading text	Not measured	1218	Only GPT-4.1 measured
LMArena Vision: humor	Not measured	1196	Only GPT-4.1 measured
LMArena Vision: captioning	Not measured	1207	Only GPT-4.1 measured
LMArena Vision: recognizing things	Not measured	1208	Only GPT-4.1 measured
LMArena Vision: creative writing	Not measured	1210	Only GPT-4.1 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 13 boards here

Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared

Image generation benchmarks for GLM 5.1 and GPT-4.1
Benchmark	GLM 5.1	GPT-4.1	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 5.1$0.0036Fits in one request

GPT-4.1$0.0060Fits in one request

GLM 5.1 costs less

Repository review

50K input + 3K output tokens

GLM 5.1$0.083Fits in one request

GPT-4.1$0.124Fits in one request

GLM 5.1 costs less

Agent loop

200K input + 10K output tokens

GLM 5.1$0.324Exceeds the context window

GPT-4.1$0.480Fits in one request

GLM 5.1 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 5.1 and GPT-4.1
Specification	Z.ai GLM 5.1	OpenAI GPT-4.1
Maker	Z.ai	OpenAI
Weights	Open weights	No public weights listed
Released	April 7, 2026	April 14, 2025
Context window	205K	1.05M
Input $/Mtok	$1.40	$2.00
Output $/Mtok	$4.40	$8.00
Coding index	49.2	Not benchmarked
Independent measurements behind it	3	0
Cost per solved task	$0.60	$0.37
Source	OpenRouter listing	OpenRouter listing

Questions

Is GLM 5.1 better than GPT-4.1 for coding?

Only GLM 5.1 has a coding score, 49.2 on the Vibe Coding Index; GPT-4.1 has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Pick GPT-4.1 for a lower cost per solved task ($0.37 against $0.60) and a larger context window (1.05M against 205K tokens).

Which is cheaper, GLM 5.1 or GPT-4.1?

GLM 5.1 costs $1.40 per million input tokens and $4.40 per million output tokens; GPT-4.1 costs $2.00 and $8.00. Per solved SWE-bench Verified task, GLM 5.1 costs $0.60 and GPT-4.1 $0.37.

Which has the bigger context window, GLM 5.1 or GPT-4.1?

GPT-4.1, with 1.05M tokens against 205K.

How many benchmarks is the GLM 5.1 vs GPT-4.1 comparison based on?

58 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 22, 2026. GLM 5.1's coding index rests on 3 independent benchmarks and GPT-4.1's on 0. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.

GLM 5.1 or GPT-4.1: which to pick

Which one for your work

Coding

Intelligence

Agentic work

Reasoning

Math

Knowledge

Web design

Long documents

Everyday cost

Cost per solved task

At a glance

Benchmark by benchmark

What each workload costs

Chat turn

Repository review

Agent loop

Specification differences

Questions

Compare next