Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

GLM 5.2 vs GPT-4.1 Mini

GLM 5.2 leads GPT-4.1 Mini on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index, 33.7 to 10.2, and GPT-4.1 Mini costs 2.8x less per output token ($1.60 vs $4.40 per million). Updated October 21, 2026; 61 benchmarks have a result for both.

GLM 5.2Z.ai
Coding
61.1
Overall
62.5
Output $/M
$4.40
61
GPT-4.1 MiniOpenAI
Coding
No data
Overall
31.9
Output $/M
$1.60
0
vs boards won of 61 shared

GLM 5.2 or GPT-4.1 Mini: which to pick

Only GLM 5.2 has a coding score, 61.1 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).

Shared results
61
GLM 5.2 only
37
GPT-4.1 Mini only
25
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 5.2 61.1 from 4 benchmarks, GPT-4.1 Mini not benchmarked.
Widest category
Agentic work, 46.2 points apart on average over 1 shared benchmark.
Widest single gap
ARC-AGI: GLM 5.2 77.0% against GPT-4.1 Mini 3.5%, 73.5 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
Output price
GLM 5.2 $4.40 against GPT-4.1 Mini $1.60 per million output tokens, 2.8x apart.
Context window
GLM 5.2 takes 1.05M 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 5.2BarsGPT-4.1 MiniTies
Coding60
Intelligence20
Agentic work10
Reasoning120
Math40
Knowledge90
Web design60
General210
All shared boards610
CodingLike-for-likeSix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index60
Coding benchmarks for GLM 5.2 and GPT-4.1 Mini
BenchmarkGLM 5.2GPT-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 WebDev1604Not measuredOnly GLM 5.2 measured
AA Coding Index68.820.2GLM 5.2
LiveCodeBench (Vals AI)69.5%58.2%GLM 5.2
SWE-bench Verified (Vals AI)82.8%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.2 measured
Vibe Code Bench (Vals AI)64.0%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.2 measured
Code migration (Vals AI)37.9%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.2 measured
ProgramBench (Vals AI)0.5%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.2 measured
Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals AI)67.8%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.2 measured
SkillsBench (Vals AI)45.1%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.2 measured
LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run)Not measured48.3%Only GPT-4.1 Mini measured
SciCode51.2%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.2 measured
Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run)50.8%7.6%GLM 5.2
FrontierCode24.5%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.2 measured
WeirdML70.1%37.6%GLM 5.2
ALE-Bench1047.0Not measuredOnly GLM 5.2 measured
LMArena Text: coding14871367GLM 5.2
LMArena Text: software and IT14861360GLM 5.2
LMArena WebDev: React1617Not measuredOnly GLM 5.2 measured
LMArena WebDev: HTML1565Not measuredOnly GLM 5.2 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 18 boards here
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index20
Intelligence benchmarks for GLM 5.2 and GPT-4.1 Mini
BenchmarkGLM 5.2GPT-4.1 MiniLeader
AA Intelligence Index33.710.2GLM 5.2
Epoch Capabilities Index151.9134.9GLM 5.2
Agentic workLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index10
Agentic work benchmarks for GLM 5.2 and GPT-4.1 Mini
BenchmarkGLM 5.2GPT-4.1 MiniLeader
AA Agentic Index38.4Not measuredOnly GLM 5.2 measured
Design Arena: agents building web apps1222Not measuredOnly GLM 5.2 measured
Design Arena: agents building full-stack apps1241Not measuredOnly GLM 5.2 measured
Design Arena: agents building mobile apps1160Not measuredOnly GLM 5.2 measured
Design Arena: agents building Android apps1178Not measuredOnly GLM 5.2 measured
Design Arena: agents building Godot games1142Not measuredOnly GLM 5.2 measured
Design Arena: agents building games1206Not measuredOnly GLM 5.2 measured
Design Arena: HTML slides1175Not measuredOnly GLM 5.2 measured
Design Arena: PowerPoint slides1195Not measuredOnly GLM 5.2 measured
SREBench (Vals AI)0.0%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.2 measured
Finance Agent (Vals AI)49.7%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.2 measured
Legal Research Bench (Vals AI)31.3%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.2 measured
Excel Modeling Benchmark (Vals AI)61.5%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.2 measured
τ²-Bench Telecom99.1%52.9%GLM 5.2
APEX-Agents45.2%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.2 measured
PostTrainBench31.7%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.2 measured
Vending-Bench 2$8,314Not measuredOnly GLM 5.2 measured
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard (BFCL)Not measured50.4%Only GPT-4.1 Mini measured
Neither model has a result on the other 23 boards here
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index120
Reasoning benchmarks for GLM 5.2 and GPT-4.1 Mini
BenchmarkGLM 5.2GPT-4.1 MiniLeader
GPQA Diamond85.6%67.9%GLM 5.2
MMMU Pro (Vals AI)Not measured70.5%Only GPT-4.1 Mini measured
GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run)89.5%66.4%GLM 5.2
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)41.1%5.0%GLM 5.2
GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run)91.9%65.8%GLM 5.2
ARC-AGI77.0%3.5%GLM 5.2
ARC-AGI-222.8%0.0%GLM 5.2
SimpleBench58.8%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.2 measured
Chess puzzles22.0%1.0%GLM 5.2
Mystery game puzzles19.0%7.0%GLM 5.2
EBR-bench9.5%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.2 measured
LMArena Text: hard prompts14811349GLM 5.2
LMArena Text: expert14871338GLM 5.2
LMArena Text: hard prompts in English14811362GLM 5.2
LMArena Vision: diagramsNot measured1182Only GPT-4.1 Mini measured
LMArena Vision: homeworkNot measured1214Only GPT-4.1 Mini measured
Kagi LLM Benchmark62.6%48.6%GLM 5.2
Neither model has a result on the other 5 boards here
MathLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index40
Math benchmarks for GLM 5.2 and GPT-4.1 Mini
BenchmarkGLM 5.2GPT-4.1 MiniLeader
AIMENot measured49.4%Only GPT-4.1 Mini measured
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 AIME86.4%44.7%GLM 5.2
FrontierMath, tiers 1 to 359.2%6.7%GLM 5.2
FrontierMath, tier 429.3%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.2 measured
ProofBench35.0%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.2 measured
MATH level 5Not measured87.3%Only GPT-4.1 Mini measured
LMArena Text: math14831343GLM 5.2
LMArena Text: mathematical work14891347GLM 5.2
Neither model has a result on the other 1 board here
KnowledgeLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index90
Knowledge benchmarks for GLM 5.2 and GPT-4.1 Mini
BenchmarkGLM 5.2GPT-4.1 MiniLeader
MMLU Pro86.7%77.2%GLM 5.2
LegalBench (Vals AI)84.1%78.0%GLM 5.2
CorpFin (Vals AI)66.1%57.9%GLM 5.2
TaxEval (Vals AI)73.3%71.9%GLM 5.2
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)40.8%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.2 measured
MMLU Pro (Artificial Analysis run)Not measured78.1%Only GPT-4.1 Mini measured
SimpleQA Verified34.2%12.7%GLM 5.2
LMArena Text: science14891328GLM 5.2
LMArena Text: medicine and healthcare14751324GLM 5.2
LMArena Text: legal and government14861343GLM 5.2
LMArena Text: business and finance14511322GLM 5.2
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 5.2 and GPT-4.1 Mini
BenchmarkGLM 5.2GPT-4.1 MiniLeader
Design Arena: websites1285997GLM 5.2
Design Arena: UI components1296961GLM 5.2
Design Arena: game dev12681071GLM 5.2
Design Arena: data viz12851034GLM 5.2
Design Arena: 3D1288837GLM 5.2
Design Arena: all code categories1288994GLM 5.2
Design Arena: SVG1214Not measuredOnly GLM 5.2 measured
Design Arena: ASCII art1190Not measuredOnly GLM 5.2 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 1 board here
GeneralLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index210
General benchmarks for GLM 5.2 and GPT-4.1 Mini
BenchmarkGLM 5.2GPT-4.1 MiniLeader
MedScribe (Vals AI)83.5%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.2 measured
IFBench73.3%38.3%GLM 5.2
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR)78.3%44.0%GLM 5.2
DTBench93.6%68.8%GLM 5.2
LMCA45.8%21.1%GLM 5.2
Fiction.LiveBenchNot measured44.4%Only GPT-4.1 Mini measured
Surface Evolver Bench55.6%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.2 measured
LMArena Text14701341GLM 5.2
LMArena Text: instruction following14661333GLM 5.2
LMArena Text: creative writing14631299GLM 5.2
LMArena VisionNot measured1181Only GPT-4.1 Mini measured
LMArena Text: English14751356GLM 5.2
LMArena Text: non-English14591318GLM 5.2
LMArena Text: Chinese15221329GLM 5.2
LMArena Text: German14701350GLM 5.2
LMArena Text: Japanese14501290GLM 5.2
LMArena Text: Korean14401298GLM 5.2
LMArena Text: French14791358GLM 5.2
LMArena Text: Spanish14781319GLM 5.2
LMArena Text: Russian14681324GLM 5.2
LMArena Text: Polish14561326GLM 5.2
LMArena Text: multi-turn14691354GLM 5.2
LMArena Text: longer queries14801344GLM 5.2
LMArena Text: writing and language14631319GLM 5.2
LMArena Text: entertainment and media14501300GLM 5.2
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 14 boards here
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
Image generation benchmarks for GLM 5.2 and GPT-4.1 Mini
BenchmarkGLM 5.2GPT-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 5.2$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 5.2$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 5.2$0.324Fits in one request
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 5.2 and GPT-4.1 Mini
SpecificationZ.ai GLM 5.2OpenAI GPT-4.1 Mini
MakerZ.aiOpenAI
WeightsOpen weightsNo public weights listed
ReleasedJune 16, 2026April 14, 2025
Context window1.05M1.05M
Input $/Mtok$1.40$0.40
Output $/Mtok$4.40$1.60
Coding index61.1Not benchmarked
Independent measurements behind it40
Cost per solved task$0.86$1.818
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is GLM 5.2 better than GPT-4.1 Mini for coding?

Only GLM 5.2 has a coding score, 61.1 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).

Which is cheaper, GLM 5.2 or GPT-4.1 Mini?

GLM 5.2 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 5.2 costs $0.86 and GPT-4.1 Mini $1.818.

Which has the bigger context window, GLM 5.2 or GPT-4.1 Mini?

GLM 5.2, with 1.05M tokens against 1.05M.

How many benchmarks is the GLM 5.2 vs GPT-4.1 Mini comparison based on?

61 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 21, 2026. GLM 5.2's coding index rests on 4 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