Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

GLM 5.1 vs GPT-4.1 Mini

GLM 5.1 leads GPT-4.1 Mini on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index, 26.1 to 10.2, and GPT-4.1 Mini costs 2.8x less per output token ($1.60 vs $4.40 per million). Updated October 22, 2026; 56 benchmarks have a result for both.

GLM 5.1Z.ai
Coding
49.2
Overall
57.5
Output $/M
$4.40
55
GPT-4.1 MiniOpenAI
Coding
No data
Overall
31.9
Output $/M
$1.60
1
vs boards won of 56 shared

GLM 5.1 or GPT-4.1 Mini: which to pick

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

Pick GPT-4.1 Mini for output tokens 2.8x cheaper ($1.60 vs $4.40 per million) and a larger context window (1.05M against 205K tokens).

Shared results
56
GLM 5.1 only
33
GPT-4.1 Mini only
30
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 5.1 49.2 from 3 benchmarks, GPT-4.1 Mini not benchmarked.
Widest category
Agentic work, 44.7 points apart on average over 1 shared benchmark.
Widest single gap
Design Arena: 3D: GLM 5.1 1336 against GPT-4.1 Mini 836, 62.5 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
Output price
GLM 5.1 $4.40 against GPT-4.1 Mini $1.60 per million output tokens, 2.8x apart.
Context window
GLM 5.1 takes 205K tokens, GPT-4.1 Mini 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
CategoryGLM 5.1BarsGPT-4.1 MiniTies
Coding60
Intelligence20
Agentic work10
Reasoning80
Math50
Knowledge81
Web design60
General190
All shared boards551
CodingLike-for-likeSix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index60
Coding benchmarks for GLM 5.1 and GPT-4.1 Mini
BenchmarkGLM 5.1GPT-4.1 MiniLeader
Aider polyglotNot measured32.4%Only GPT-4.1 Mini measured
SWE-bench VerifiedNot measured23.9%Only GPT-4.1 Mini measured
LMArena WebDev1508Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
AA Coding Index55.820.2GLM 5.1
LiveCodeBench (Vals AI)81.4%58.2%GLM 5.1
SWE-bench Verified (Vals AI)76.4%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
Vibe Code Bench (Vals AI)31.5%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
Code migration (Vals AI)25.8%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
ProgramBench (Vals AI)0.0%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals AI)56.9%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run)Not measured48.3%Only GPT-4.1 Mini measured
SciCode44.8%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run)43.2%7.6%GLM 5.1
WeirdML57.1%37.6%GLM 5.1
ALE-Bench887.1Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
LMArena Text: coding14851367GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: software and IT14841360GLM 5.1
LMArena WebDev: React1505Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
LMArena WebDev: HTML1508Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 20 boards here
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index20
Intelligence benchmarks for GLM 5.1 and GPT-4.1 Mini
BenchmarkGLM 5.1GPT-4.1 MiniLeader
AA Intelligence Index26.110.2GLM 5.1
Epoch Capabilities Index149.8134.9GLM 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 Mini
BenchmarkGLM 5.1GPT-4.1 MiniLeader
AA Agentic Index23.9Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
Design Arena: agents building web apps1175Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
Design Arena: agents building full-stack apps1167Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
Design Arena: agents building mobile apps1162Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
Design Arena: agents building Android apps1182Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
Design Arena: agents building Godot games1053Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
Design Arena: agents building games1164Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
Design Arena: HTML slides1120Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
Design Arena: PowerPoint slides1163Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
Design Arena: spreadsheets1315Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
Finance Agent (Vals AI)44.8%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
Legal Research Bench (Vals AI)27.9%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
τ²-Bench Telecom97.7%52.9%GLM 5.1
APEX-Agents40.9%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
Vending-Bench 2$5,634Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard (BFCL)Not measured50.4%Only GPT-4.1 Mini measured
Neither model has a result on the other 25 boards here
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index80
Reasoning benchmarks for GLM 5.1 and GPT-4.1 Mini
BenchmarkGLM 5.1GPT-4.1 MiniLeader
GPQA Diamond84.5%67.9%GLM 5.1
MMMU Pro (Vals AI)Not measured70.5%Only GPT-4.1 Mini measured
GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run)86.8%66.4%GLM 5.1
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)30.1%5.0%GLM 5.1
GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run)89.9%65.8%GLM 5.1
ARC-AGINot measured3.5%Only GPT-4.1 Mini measured
ARC-AGI-2Not measured0.0%Only GPT-4.1 Mini measured
SimpleBench55.1%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
Chess puzzles20.0%1.0%GLM 5.1
Mystery game puzzlesNot measured7.0%Only GPT-4.1 Mini measured
LMArena Text: hard prompts14731349GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: expert14781338GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: hard prompts in English14821362GLM 5.1
LMArena Vision: diagramsNot measured1182Only GPT-4.1 Mini measured
LMArena Vision: homeworkNot measured1214Only GPT-4.1 Mini measured
Kagi LLM BenchmarkNot measured48.6%Only GPT-4.1 Mini measured
Neither model has a result on the other 6 boards here
MathLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index50
Math benchmarks for GLM 5.1 and GPT-4.1 Mini
BenchmarkGLM 5.1GPT-4.1 MiniLeader
AIME91.9%49.4%GLM 5.1
MATH 500 (Vals AI)Not measured88.0%Only GPT-4.1 Mini measured
MGSM (Vals AI)Not measured87.8%Only GPT-4.1 Mini measured
AA Math IndexNot measured46.3Only GPT-4.1 Mini measured
AIME 2025 (Artificial Analysis run)Not measured46.3%Only GPT-4.1 Mini measured
OTIS Mock AIME93.3%44.7%GLM 5.1
FrontierMath, tiers 1 to 336.8%6.7%GLM 5.1
ProofBench22.2%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
MATH level 5Not measured87.3%Only GPT-4.1 Mini measured
LMArena Text: math14731343GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: mathematical work14701347GLM 5.1
Neither model has a result on the other 2 boards here
KnowledgeLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index81
Knowledge benchmarks for GLM 5.1 and GPT-4.1 Mini
BenchmarkGLM 5.1GPT-4.1 MiniLeader
MMLU Pro86.9%77.2%GLM 5.1
LegalBench (Vals AI)84.4%78.0%GLM 5.1
CaseLaw (Vals AI)51.5%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
CorpFin (Vals AI)64.5%57.9%GLM 5.1
TaxEval (Vals AI)71.2%71.9%GPT-4.1 Mini
MortgageTax (Vals AI)Not measured65.5%Only GPT-4.1 Mini measured
MedQA (Vals AI)Not measured84.6%Only GPT-4.1 Mini measured
MedCode (Vals AI)41.6%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
MMLU Pro (Artificial Analysis run)Not measured78.1%Only GPT-4.1 Mini measured
SimpleQA Verified34.0%12.7%GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: science14781328GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: medicine and healthcare14741324GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: legal and government14651343GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: business and finance14521322GLM 5.1
Neither model has a result on the other 4 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 Mini
BenchmarkGLM 5.1GPT-4.1 MiniLeader
Design Arena: websites1290997GLM 5.1
Design Arena: UI components1292958GLM 5.1
Design Arena: game dev12651070GLM 5.1
Design Arena: data viz13661034GLM 5.1
Design Arena: 3D1336836GLM 5.1
Design Arena: all code categories1268993GLM 5.1
Design Arena: SVG1218Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
Design Arena: ASCII art1141Not measuredOnly 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 Mini
BenchmarkGLM 5.1GPT-4.1 MiniLeader
Public Benefits Bench (Vals AI)61.8%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
MedScribe (Vals AI)72.3%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
IFBench76.3%38.3%GLM 5.1
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR)73.7%44.0%GLM 5.1
DTBenchNot measured68.8%Only GPT-4.1 Mini measured
LMCANot measured21.1%Only GPT-4.1 Mini measured
Fiction.LiveBenchNot measured44.4%Only GPT-4.1 Mini measured
ExploitBench18.1%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
LMArena Text14631341GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: instruction following14531333GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: creative writing14531299GLM 5.1
LMArena VisionNot measured1181Only GPT-4.1 Mini measured
LMArena Text: English14761356GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: non-English14481318GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: Chinese15151329GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: German14671350GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: Japanese14351290GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: Korean14241298GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: French14701358GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: Spanish14681319GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: Russian14541324GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: Polish14491326GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: multi-turn14731354GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: longer queries14671344GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: writing and language14541319GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: entertainment and media14421300GLM 5.1
LMArena Vision: EnglishNot measured1191Only GPT-4.1 Mini measured
LMArena Vision: ChineseNot measured1186Only GPT-4.1 Mini measured
LMArena Vision: reading textNot measured1188Only GPT-4.1 Mini measured
LMArena Vision: humorNot measured1182Only GPT-4.1 Mini measured
LMArena Vision: captioningNot measured1174Only GPT-4.1 Mini measured
LMArena Vision: recognizing thingsNot measured1187Only GPT-4.1 Mini measured
LMArena Vision: creative writingNot measured1182Only GPT-4.1 Mini 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 Mini
BenchmarkGLM 5.1GPT-4.1 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 5.1$0.0036Fits in one request
GPT-4.1 Mini$0.0012Fits in one request

GPT-4.1 Mini costs less

Repository review

50K input + 3K output tokens

GLM 5.1$0.083Fits in one request
GPT-4.1 Mini$0.025Fits in one request

GPT-4.1 Mini costs less

Agent loop

200K input + 10K output tokens

GLM 5.1$0.324Exceeds the context window
GPT-4.1 Mini$0.096Fits in one request

GPT-4.1 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 5.1 and GPT-4.1 Mini
SpecificationZ.ai GLM 5.1OpenAI GPT-4.1 Mini
MakerZ.aiOpenAI
WeightsOpen weightsNo public weights listed
ReleasedApril 7, 2026April 14, 2025
Context window205K1.05M
Input $/Mtok$1.40$0.40
Output $/Mtok$4.40$1.60
Coding index49.2Not benchmarked
Independent measurements behind it30
Cost per solved task$0.60$1.818
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is GLM 5.1 better than GPT-4.1 Mini for coding?

Only GLM 5.1 has a coding score, 49.2 on the Vibe Coding Index; GPT-4.1 Mini has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Pick GPT-4.1 Mini for output tokens 2.8x cheaper ($1.60 vs $4.40 per million) and a larger context window (1.05M against 205K tokens).

Which is cheaper, GLM 5.1 or GPT-4.1 Mini?

GLM 5.1 costs $1.40 per million input tokens and $4.40 per million output tokens; GPT-4.1 Mini costs $0.40 and $1.60. Per solved SWE-bench Verified task, GLM 5.1 costs $0.60 and GPT-4.1 Mini $1.818.

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

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

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

56 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 Mini's on 0. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.

Compare next