Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

GLM 5.1 vs Mistral Medium 3

Updated October 21, 2026. 42 benchmarks have a result for both. Coding is ranked on the Vibe Coding Index; every other board is shown as published.

Replace GLM 5.1 Replace Mistral Medium 3
GLM 5.1Z.ai
Coding
49.2
Overall
26.1
Output $/M
$4.40
42
Mistral Medium 3Mistral AI
Coding
No data
Overall
9.0
Output $/M
$2.00
0
vs boards won of 42 shared

Decision reading

Only GLM 5.1 has a coding score, 49.2 on the Vibe Coding Index; Mistral Medium 3 has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding.

Mistral Medium 3 has the edge where output tokens cost 2.2x less.

Model AGLM 5.1Z.ai49.2/1003 independent benchmarks$0.60 per solved taskModel BMistral Medium 3Mistral AINot benchmarkedNo coding benchmarkNo cost per solved task
Shared results
42
GLM 5.1 only
47
Mistral Medium 3 only
15
Like-for-like categories
8 of 9

Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results only one model has describe coverage, not superiority.

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, Mistral Medium 3 not benchmarked.
Widest category
Agentic work, 73.4 points apart on average over 1 shared benchmark.
Widest single gap
τ²-Bench Telecom: GLM 5.1 97.7% against Mistral Medium 3 24.3%, 73.4 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
Output price
GLM 5.1 $4.40 against Mistral Medium 3 $2.00 per million output tokens, 2.2x apart.
Context window
GLM 5.1 takes 205K tokens, Mistral Medium 3 131K.

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 5.1BarsMistral Medium 3Ties
Coding30
Intelligence20
Agentic work10
Reasoning50
Math20
Knowledge40
Web design60
General190
All shared boards420
CodingLike-for-likeSix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index30
Coding benchmarks for GLM 5.1 and Mistral Medium 3
BenchmarkGLM 5.1Mistral Medium 3Leader
LMArena WebDev1508Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
AA Coding Index55.8Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
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 measured40.0%Only Mistral Medium 3 measured
SciCode44.8%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run)43.2%3.8%GLM 5.1
WeirdML57.1%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
ALE-Bench887.1Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
LMArena Text: coding14851385GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: software and IT14841385GLM 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 21 boards here
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index20
Intelligence benchmarks for GLM 5.1 and Mistral Medium 3
BenchmarkGLM 5.1Mistral Medium 3Leader
AA Intelligence Index26.19.0GLM 5.1
Epoch Capabilities Index149.8134.0GLM 5.1
Agentic workLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index10
Agentic work benchmarks for GLM 5.1 and Mistral Medium 3
BenchmarkGLM 5.1Mistral Medium 3Leader
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 apps1180Not 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 slides1170Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
Design Arena: PowerPoint slides1188Not 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%24.3%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 24 boards here
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index50
Reasoning benchmarks for GLM 5.1 and Mistral Medium 3
BenchmarkGLM 5.1Mistral Medium 3Leader
GPQA Diamond84.5%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run)86.8%57.8%GLM 5.1
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)30.1%4.1%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 prompts14731364GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: expert14781342GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: hard prompts in English14821374GLM 5.1
LMArena Vision: diagramsNot measured1155Only Mistral Medium 3 measured
LMArena Vision: homeworkNot measured1165Only Mistral Medium 3 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 10 boards here
MathLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index20
Math benchmarks for GLM 5.1 and Mistral Medium 3
BenchmarkGLM 5.1Mistral Medium 3Leader
AIME91.9%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
AA Math IndexNot measured30.3Only Mistral Medium 3 measured
AIME 2025 (Artificial Analysis run)Not measured30.3%Only Mistral Medium 3 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: math14731353GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: mathematical work14701354GLM 5.1
Neither model has a result on the other 5 boards here
KnowledgeLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index40
Knowledge benchmarks for GLM 5.1 and Mistral Medium 3
BenchmarkGLM 5.1Mistral Medium 3Leader
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
MMLU Pro (Artificial Analysis run)Not measured76.0%Only Mistral Medium 3 measured
SimpleQA Verified34.0%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
LMArena Text: science14781381GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: medicine and healthcare14741381GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: legal and government14651384GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: business and finance14521352GLM 5.1
Neither model has a result on the other 5 boards here
Web designLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index60
Web design benchmarks for GLM 5.1 and Mistral Medium 3
BenchmarkGLM 5.1Mistral Medium 3Leader
Design Arena: websites12901079GLM 5.1
Design Arena: UI components12921024GLM 5.1
Design Arena: game dev12651018GLM 5.1
Design Arena: data viz13661034GLM 5.1
Design Arena: 3D13361084GLM 5.1
Design Arena: all code categories12681069GLM 5.1
Design Arena: SVG1218Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
Design Arena: ASCII art1142Not 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 Mistral Medium 3
BenchmarkGLM 5.1Mistral Medium 3Leader
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%39.3%GLM 5.1
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR)73.7%31.3%GLM 5.1
DTBenchNot measured62.3%Only Mistral Medium 3 measured
ExploitBench18.1%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
LMArena Text14631370GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: instruction following14531338GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: creative writing14531343GLM 5.1
LMArena VisionNot measured1157Only Mistral Medium 3 measured
LMArena Text: English14761385GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: non-English14481353GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: Chinese15151374GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: German14671377GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: Japanese14351316GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: Korean14241304GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: French14701368GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: Spanish14681364GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: Russian14541359GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: Polish14491371GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: multi-turn14731384GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: longer queries14671360GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: writing and language14541352GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: entertainment and media14421335GLM 5.1
LMArena Vision: EnglishNot measured1172Only Mistral Medium 3 measured
LMArena Vision: ChineseNot measured1161Only Mistral Medium 3 measured
LMArena Vision: reading textNot measured1154Only Mistral Medium 3 measured
LMArena Vision: humorNot measured1145Only Mistral Medium 3 measured
LMArena Vision: captioningNot measured1094Only Mistral Medium 3 measured
LMArena Vision: recognizing thingsNot measured1141Only Mistral Medium 3 measured
LMArena Vision: creative writingNot measured1146Only Mistral Medium 3 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 15 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 Mistral Medium 3
BenchmarkGLM 5.1Mistral Medium 3Leader
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
Mistral Medium 3$0.0014Fits in one request

Mistral Medium 3 costs less

Repository review

50K input + 3K output tokens

GLM 5.1$0.083Fits in one request
Mistral Medium 3$0.026Fits in one request

Mistral Medium 3 costs less

Agent loop

200K input + 10K output tokens

GLM 5.1$0.324Exceeds the context window
Mistral Medium 3$0.100Exceeds the context window

Mistral Medium 3 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 Mistral Medium 3
SpecificationZ.ai GLM 5.1Mistral Medium 3
MakerZ.aiMistral AI
WeightsOpen weightsNo public weights listed
ReleasedApril 7, 2026May 7, 2025
Context window205K131K
Input $/Mtok$1.40$0.40
Output $/Mtok$4.40$2.00
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 Mistral Medium 3 for coding?

Only GLM 5.1 has a coding score, 49.2 on the Vibe Coding Index; Mistral Medium 3 has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Mistral Medium 3 has the edge where output tokens cost 2.2x less.

Which is cheaper, GLM 5.1 or Mistral Medium 3?

GLM 5.1 costs $1.40 per million input tokens and $4.40 per million output tokens; Mistral Medium 3 costs $0.40 and $2.00. Cost per solved task is known for GLM 5.1 only.

Which has the bigger context window, GLM 5.1 or Mistral Medium 3?

GLM 5.1, with 205K tokens against 131K.

How many benchmarks is the GLM 5.1 vs Mistral Medium 3 comparison based on?

42 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 21, 2026. GLM 5.1's coding index rests on 3 independent benchmarks and Mistral Medium 3's on 0. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.

Compare next