Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

GLM 5.1 vs Mercury 2

GLM 5.1 leads Mercury 2 on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index, 26.1 to 10.8, and Mercury 2 costs 5.9x less per output token ($0.75 vs $4.40 per million). Updated October 22, 2026; 42 benchmarks have a result for both.

Replace GLM 5.1 Replace Mercury 2
GLM 5.1Z.ai
Coding
49.2
Overall
57.5
Output $/M
$4.40
42
Mercury 2Inception
Coding
No data
Overall
No data
Output $/M
$0.75
0
vs boards won of 42 shared

GLM 5.1 or Mercury 2: which to pick

Only GLM 5.1 has a coding score, 49.2 on the Vibe Coding Index; Mercury 2 has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding.

Pick Mercury 2 for output tokens 5.9x cheaper ($0.75 vs $4.40 per million).

Model AGLM 5.1Z.ai49.2/1003 independent benchmarks$0.60 per solved taskModel BMercury 2InceptionNot benchmarked1 independent benchmarkNo cost per solved task
Shared results
42
GLM 5.1 only
47
Mercury 2 only
0
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 5.1 49.2 from 3 benchmarks, Mercury 2 not benchmarked.
Widest category
Web design, 33.8 points apart on average over 8 shared benchmarks.
Widest single gap
LMArena WebDev: React: GLM 5.1 1505 against Mercury 2 1160, 57.5 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
Output price
GLM 5.1 $4.40 against Mercury 2 $0.75 per million output tokens, 5.9x apart.
Context window
GLM 5.1 takes 205K tokens, Mercury 2 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 5.1BarsMercury 2Ties
Coding100
Intelligence10
Agentic work20
Reasoning50
Knowledge30
Web design80
General130
All shared boards420
CodingLike-for-likeSix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index100
Coding benchmarks for GLM 5.1 and Mercury 2
BenchmarkGLM 5.1Mercury 2Leader
LMArena WebDev15081171GLM 5.1
AA Coding Index55.831.1GLM 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
SciCode44.8%37.7%GLM 5.1
Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run)43.2%26.5%GLM 5.1
WeirdML57.1%43.2%GLM 5.1
ALE-Bench887.1785.6GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: coding14851390GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: software and IT14841385GLM 5.1
LMArena WebDev: React15051160GLM 5.1
LMArena WebDev: HTML15081199GLM 5.1
Neither model has a result on the other 23 boards here
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index10
Intelligence benchmarks for GLM 5.1 and Mercury 2
BenchmarkGLM 5.1Mercury 2Leader
AA Intelligence Index26.110.8GLM 5.1
Epoch Capabilities Index149.8Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
Agentic workLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index20
Agentic work benchmarks for GLM 5.1 and Mercury 2
BenchmarkGLM 5.1Mercury 2Leader
AA Agentic Index23.91.6GLM 5.1
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%70.8%GLM 5.1
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 index50
Reasoning benchmarks for GLM 5.1 and Mercury 2
BenchmarkGLM 5.1Mercury 2Leader
GPQA Diamond84.5%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run)86.8%77.0%GLM 5.1
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)30.1%17.1%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 prompts14731362GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: expert14781358GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: hard prompts in English14821374GLM 5.1
Neither model has a result on the other 13 boards here
MathDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index6 boards, none shared
Math benchmarks for GLM 5.1 and Mercury 2
BenchmarkGLM 5.1Mercury 2Leader
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: math1473Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
LMArena Text: mathematical work1470Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 7 boards here
KnowledgeLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index30
Knowledge benchmarks for GLM 5.1 and Mercury 2
BenchmarkGLM 5.1Mercury 2Leader
MMLU Pro86.9%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
LegalBench (Vals AI)84.4%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
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
MedCode (Vals AI)41.6%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
SimpleQA Verified34.0%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
LMArena Text: science14781343GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: medicine and healthcare14741363GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: legal and government1465Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
LMArena Text: business and finance14521349GLM 5.1
Neither model has a result on the other 7 boards here
Web designLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index80
Web design benchmarks for GLM 5.1 and Mercury 2
BenchmarkGLM 5.1Mercury 2Leader
Design Arena: websites12901036GLM 5.1
Design Arena: UI components1292996GLM 5.1
Design Arena: game dev1265984GLM 5.1
Design Arena: data viz13661009GLM 5.1
Design Arena: 3D1336982GLM 5.1
Design Arena: all code categories12681021GLM 5.1
Design Arena: SVG1218998GLM 5.1
Design Arena: ASCII art1141988GLM 5.1
Neither model has a result on the other 1 board here
GeneralLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index130
General benchmarks for GLM 5.1 and Mercury 2
BenchmarkGLM 5.1Mercury 2Leader
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%69.8%GLM 5.1
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR)73.7%43.7%GLM 5.1
ExploitBench18.1%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
LMArena Text14631354GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: instruction following14531328GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: creative writing14531286GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: English14761378GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: non-English14481330GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: Chinese15151414GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: German1467Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
LMArena Text: Japanese1435Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
LMArena Text: Korean1424Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
LMArena Text: French1470Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
LMArena Text: Spanish1468Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
LMArena Text: Russian14541304GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: Polish1449Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
LMArena Text: multi-turn14731357GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: longer queries14671329GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: writing and language14541300GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: entertainment and media14421314GLM 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 5.1 and Mercury 2
BenchmarkGLM 5.1Mercury 2Leader
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
Mercury 2$0.0006Fits in one request

Mercury 2 costs less

Repository review

50K input + 3K output tokens

GLM 5.1$0.083Fits in one request
Mercury 2$0.015Fits in one request

Mercury 2 costs less

Agent loop

200K input + 10K output tokens

GLM 5.1$0.324Exceeds the context window
Mercury 2$0.058Exceeds the context window

Mercury 2 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 Mercury 2
SpecificationZ.ai GLM 5.1Inception Mercury 2
MakerZ.aiInception
WeightsOpen weightsNo public weights listed
ReleasedApril 7, 2026March 4, 2026
Context window205K128K
Input $/Mtok$1.40$0.25
Output $/Mtok$4.40$0.75
Coding index49.2Not benchmarked
Independent measurements behind it31
Cost per solved task$0.60Not computable
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is GLM 5.1 better than Mercury 2 for coding?

Only GLM 5.1 has a coding score, 49.2 on the Vibe Coding Index; Mercury 2 has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Pick Mercury 2 for output tokens 5.9x cheaper ($0.75 vs $4.40 per million).

Which is cheaper, GLM 5.1 or Mercury 2?

GLM 5.1 costs $1.40 per million input tokens and $4.40 per million output tokens; Mercury 2 costs $0.25 and $0.75. Cost per solved task is known for GLM 5.1 only.

Which has the bigger context window, GLM 5.1 or Mercury 2?

GLM 5.1, with 205K tokens against 128K.

How many benchmarks is the GLM 5.1 vs Mercury 2 comparison based on?

42 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 22, 2026. GLM 5.1's coding index rests on 3 independent benchmarks and Mercury 2's on 1. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.

Compare next