Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

GLM 5.1 vs Mistral Small 3.1 24B

Mistral Small 3.1 24B costs 7.9x less per output token than GLM 5.1 ($0.555 vs $4.40 per million). Updated October 21, 2026; 28 benchmarks have a result for both.

GLM 5.1Z.ai
Coding
49.2
Overall
57.5
Output $/M
$4.40
28
Mistral Small 3.1 24BMistral AI
Coding
No data
Overall
No data
Output $/M
$0.555
0
vs boards won of 28 shared

GLM 5.1 or Mistral Small 3.1 24B: which to pick

Only GLM 5.1 has a coding score, 49.2 on the Vibe Coding Index; Mistral Small 3.1 24B has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding.

Pick Mistral Small 3.1 24B for output tokens 7.9x cheaper ($0.555 vs $4.40 per million).

Shared results
28
GLM 5.1 only
61
Mistral Small 3.1 24B only
10
Like-for-like categories
5 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, Mistral Small 3.1 24B not benchmarked.
Widest category
Math, 34.2 points apart on average over 2 shared benchmarks.
Widest single gap
LMArena Text: Chinese: GLM 5.1 1515 against Mistral Small 3.1 24B 1253, 43.8 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
Output price
GLM 5.1 $4.40 against Mistral Small 3.1 24B $0.555 per million output tokens, 7.9x apart.
Context window
GLM 5.1 takes 205K tokens, Mistral Small 3.1 24B 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 5.1BarsMistral Small 3.1 24BTies
Coding20
Reasoning30
Math20
Knowledge40
General170
All shared boards280
CodingLike-for-likeSix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index20
Coding benchmarks for GLM 5.1 and Mistral Small 3.1 24B
BenchmarkGLM 5.1Mistral Small 3.1 24BLeader
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
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: coding14851309GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: software and IT14841301GLM 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 23 boards here
IntelligenceDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index2 boards, none shared
Intelligence benchmarks for GLM 5.1 and Mistral Small 3.1 24B
BenchmarkGLM 5.1Mistral Small 3.1 24BLeader
AA Intelligence Index26.1Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
Epoch Capabilities Index149.8Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
Agentic workDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index15 boards, none shared
Agentic work benchmarks for GLM 5.1 and Mistral Small 3.1 24B
BenchmarkGLM 5.1Mistral Small 3.1 24BLeader
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%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 index30
Reasoning benchmarks for GLM 5.1 and Mistral Small 3.1 24B
BenchmarkGLM 5.1Mistral Small 3.1 24BLeader
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%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
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 prompts14731278GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: expert14781257GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: hard prompts in English14821290GLM 5.1
LMArena Vision: diagramsNot measured1119Only Mistral Small 3.1 24B measured
LMArena Vision: homeworkNot measured1158Only Mistral Small 3.1 24B measured
Neither model has a result on the other 11 boards here
MathLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index20
Math benchmarks for GLM 5.1 and Mistral Small 3.1 24B
BenchmarkGLM 5.1Mistral Small 3.1 24BLeader
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: math14731261GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: mathematical work14701271GLM 5.1
Neither model has a result on the other 7 boards here
KnowledgeLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index40
Knowledge benchmarks for GLM 5.1 and Mistral Small 3.1 24B
BenchmarkGLM 5.1Mistral Small 3.1 24BLeader
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: science14781265GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: medicine and healthcare14741267GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: legal and government14651271GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: business and finance14521257GLM 5.1
Neither model has a result on the other 7 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 Mistral Small 3.1 24B
BenchmarkGLM 5.1Mistral Small 3.1 24BLeader
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 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 index170
General benchmarks for GLM 5.1 and Mistral Small 3.1 24B
BenchmarkGLM 5.1Mistral Small 3.1 24BLeader
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
ExploitBench18.1%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
LMArena Text14631277GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: instruction following14531263GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: creative writing14531252GLM 5.1
LMArena VisionNot measured1136Only Mistral Small 3.1 24B measured
LMArena Text: English14761295GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: non-English14481255GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: Chinese15151253GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: German14671266GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: Japanese14351208GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: Korean14241207GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: French14701273GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: Spanish14681284GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: Russian14541263GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: Polish14491242GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: multi-turn14731270GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: longer queries14671299GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: writing and language14541268GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: entertainment and media14421250GLM 5.1
LMArena Vision: EnglishNot measured1157Only Mistral Small 3.1 24B measured
LMArena Vision: ChineseNot measured1155Only Mistral Small 3.1 24B measured
LMArena Vision: reading textNot measured1132Only Mistral Small 3.1 24B measured
LMArena Vision: humorNot measured1142Only Mistral Small 3.1 24B measured
LMArena Vision: captioningNot measured1153Only Mistral Small 3.1 24B measured
LMArena Vision: recognizing thingsNot measured1155Only Mistral Small 3.1 24B measured
LMArena Vision: creative writingNot measured1123Only Mistral Small 3.1 24B measured
Neither model has a result on the other 16 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 Small 3.1 24B
BenchmarkGLM 5.1Mistral Small 3.1 24BLeader
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 Small 3.1 24B$0.0006Fits in one request

Mistral Small 3.1 24B costs less

Repository review

50K input + 3K output tokens

GLM 5.1$0.083Fits in one request
Mistral Small 3.1 24B$0.019Fits in one request

Mistral Small 3.1 24B costs less

Agent loop

200K input + 10K output tokens

GLM 5.1$0.324Exceeds the context window
Mistral Small 3.1 24B$0.076Exceeds the context window

Mistral Small 3.1 24B 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 Small 3.1 24B
SpecificationZ.ai GLM 5.1Mistral Small 3.1 24B
MakerZ.aiMistral AI
WeightsOpen weightsOpen weights
ReleasedApril 7, 2026March 17, 2025
Context window205K128K
Input $/Mtok$1.40$0.351
Output $/Mtok$4.40$0.555
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 Small 3.1 24B for coding?

Only GLM 5.1 has a coding score, 49.2 on the Vibe Coding Index; Mistral Small 3.1 24B has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Pick Mistral Small 3.1 24B for output tokens 7.9x cheaper ($0.555 vs $4.40 per million).

Which is cheaper, GLM 5.1 or Mistral Small 3.1 24B?

GLM 5.1 costs $1.40 per million input tokens and $4.40 per million output tokens; Mistral Small 3.1 24B costs $0.351 and $0.555. Cost per solved task is known for GLM 5.1 only.

Which has the bigger context window, GLM 5.1 or Mistral Small 3.1 24B?

GLM 5.1, with 205K tokens against 128K.

How many benchmarks is the GLM 5.1 vs Mistral Small 3.1 24B comparison based on?

28 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 Small 3.1 24B's on 0. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.

Compare next