Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

GLM 5.1 vs GPT-4 Turbo

GLM 5.1 leads GPT-4 Turbo on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index, 26.1 to 7.0, and GLM 5.1 costs 6.8x less per output token ($4.40 vs $30.00 per million). Updated October 22, 2026; 33 benchmarks have a result for both.

Replace GLM 5.1 Replace GPT-4 Turbo
GLM 5.1Z.ai
Coding
49.2
Overall
57.5
Output $/M
$4.40
33
GPT-4 TurboOpenAI
Coding
No data
Overall
No data
Output $/M
$30.00
0
vs boards won of 33 shared

GLM 5.1 or GPT-4 Turbo: which to pick

Only GLM 5.1 has a coding score, 49.2 on the Vibe Coding Index; GPT-4 Turbo has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding.

Compare them on price, context and the boards below.

Model AGLM 5.1Z.ai49.2/1003 independent benchmarks$0.60 per solved taskModel BGPT-4 TurboOpenAINot benchmarkedNo coding benchmarkNo cost per solved task
Shared results
33
GLM 5.1 only
56
GPT-4 Turbo only
9
Like-for-like categories
6 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 Turbo not benchmarked.
Widest category
Reasoning, 35.6 points apart on average over 4 shared benchmarks.
Widest single gap
LMArena Text: Chinese: GLM 5.1 1515 against GPT-4 Turbo 1242, 45.5 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
Output price
GLM 5.1 $4.40 against GPT-4 Turbo $30.00 per million output tokens, 6.8x apart.
Context window
GLM 5.1 takes 205K tokens, GPT-4 Turbo 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 5.1BarsGPT-4 TurboTies
Coding30
Intelligence20
Reasoning40
Math20
Knowledge50
General170
All shared boards330
CodingLike-for-likeSix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index30
Coding benchmarks for GLM 5.1 and GPT-4 Turbo
BenchmarkGLM 5.1GPT-4 TurboLeader
LMArena WebDev1508Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
AA Coding Index55.821.5GLM 5.1
LiveCodeBench (Vals AI)81.4%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
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 measured29.1%Only GPT-4 Turbo measured
SciCode44.8%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run)43.2%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
WeirdML57.1%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
ALE-Bench887.1Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
LMArena Text: coding14851268GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: software and IT14841267GLM 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 22 boards here
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index20
Intelligence benchmarks for GLM 5.1 and GPT-4 Turbo
BenchmarkGLM 5.1GPT-4 TurboLeader
AA Intelligence Index26.17.0GLM 5.1
Epoch Capabilities Index149.8127.3GLM 5.1
Agentic workDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index15 boards, none shared
Agentic work benchmarks for GLM 5.1 and GPT-4 Turbo
BenchmarkGLM 5.1GPT-4 TurboLeader
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%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
APEX-Agents40.9%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
Vending-Bench 2$5,634Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 26 boards here
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index40
Reasoning benchmarks for GLM 5.1 and GPT-4 Turbo
BenchmarkGLM 5.1GPT-4 TurboLeader
GPQA Diamond84.5%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run)86.8%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)30.1%3.1%GLM 5.1
GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run)89.9%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
SimpleBench55.1%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
Chess puzzles20.0%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
LMArena Text: hard prompts14731251GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: expert14781223GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: hard prompts in English14821266GLM 5.1
Neither model has a result on the other 13 boards here
MathLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index20
Math benchmarks for GLM 5.1 and GPT-4 Turbo
BenchmarkGLM 5.1GPT-4 TurboLeader
AIME91.9%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
OTIS Mock AIME93.3%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
FrontierMath, tiers 1 to 336.8%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
ProofBench22.2%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
LMArena Text: math14731272GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: mathematical work14701268GLM 5.1
Neither model has a result on the other 7 boards here
KnowledgeLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index50
Knowledge benchmarks for GLM 5.1 and GPT-4 Turbo
BenchmarkGLM 5.1GPT-4 TurboLeader
MMLU Pro86.9%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
LegalBench (Vals AI)84.4%80.5%GLM 5.1
CaseLaw (Vals AI)51.5%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
CorpFin (Vals AI)64.5%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
TaxEval (Vals AI)71.2%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
MedQA (Vals AI)Not measured82.0%Only GPT-4 Turbo measured
MedCode (Vals AI)41.6%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
MMLU Pro (Artificial Analysis run)Not measured69.4%Only GPT-4 Turbo measured
SimpleQA Verified34.0%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
MMLUNot measured81.3%Only GPT-4 Turbo measured
LMArena Text: science14781256GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: medicine and healthcare14741239GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: legal and government14651265GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: business and finance14521222GLM 5.1
Neither model has a result on the other 4 boards here
Web designDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index8 boards, none shared
Web design benchmarks for GLM 5.1 and GPT-4 Turbo
BenchmarkGLM 5.1GPT-4 TurboLeader
Design Arena: websites1290Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
Design Arena: UI components1292Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
Design Arena: game dev1265Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
Design Arena: data viz1366Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
Design Arena: 3D1336Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
Design Arena: all code categories1268Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
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 index170
General benchmarks for GLM 5.1 and GPT-4 Turbo
BenchmarkGLM 5.1GPT-4 TurboLeader
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%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR)73.7%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
DTBenchNot measured61.6%Only GPT-4 Turbo measured
LMCANot measured9.8%Only GPT-4 Turbo measured
ExploitBench18.1%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
LMArena Text14631272GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: instruction following14531249GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: creative writing14531268GLM 5.1
LMArena VisionNot measured1090Only GPT-4 Turbo measured
LMArena Text: English14761291GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: non-English14481245GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: Chinese15151242GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: German14671259GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: Japanese14351194GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: Korean14241187GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: French14701276GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: Spanish14681260GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: Russian14541259GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: Polish14491302GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: multi-turn14731267GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: longer queries14671254GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: writing and language14541279GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: entertainment and media14421258GLM 5.1
LMArena Vision: EnglishNot measured1097Only GPT-4 Turbo measured
LMArena Vision: ChineseNot measured1045Only GPT-4 Turbo measured
Neither model has a result on the other 19 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 Turbo
BenchmarkGLM 5.1GPT-4 TurboLeader
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 Turbo$0.025Fits 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 Turbo$0.590Fits 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 Turbo$2.30Exceeds the context window

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 Turbo
SpecificationZ.ai GLM 5.1OpenAI GPT-4 Turbo
MakerZ.aiOpenAI
WeightsOpen weightsNo public weights listed
ReleasedApril 7, 2026April 9, 2024
Context window205K128K
Input $/Mtok$1.40$10.00
Output $/Mtok$4.40$30.00
Coding index49.2Not benchmarked
Independent measurements behind it30
Cost per solved task$0.60Not computable
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is GLM 5.1 better than GPT-4 Turbo for coding?

Only GLM 5.1 has a coding score, 49.2 on the Vibe Coding Index; GPT-4 Turbo has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Compare them on price, context and the boards below.

Which is cheaper, GLM 5.1 or GPT-4 Turbo?

GLM 5.1 costs $1.40 per million input tokens and $4.40 per million output tokens; GPT-4 Turbo costs $10.00 and $30.00. Cost per solved task is known for GLM 5.1 only.

Which has the bigger context window, GLM 5.1 or GPT-4 Turbo?

GLM 5.1, with 205K tokens against 128K.

How many benchmarks is the GLM 5.1 vs GPT-4 Turbo comparison based on?

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

Compare next