GLM 5 vs GLM 5 Turbo
GLM 5 leads GLM 5 Turbo on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index, 27.9 to 26.6, and GLM 5 costs 1.3x less per output token ($3.20 vs $4.00 per million). Updated October 21, 2026; 16 benchmarks have a result for both.
GLM 5 or GLM 5 Turbo: which to pick
Only GLM 5 has a coding score, 41.7 on the Vibe Coding Index; GLM 5 Turbo has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding.
Pick GLM 5 Turbo for work measured by τ²-Bench Telecom or GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run), where it leads.
- Shared results
- 16
- GLM 5 only
- 60
- GLM 5 Turbo only
- 0
- 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.
Coding
Vibe Coding Index, six public coding benchmarks
No call
Only GLM 5 has a coding score, so no call is made.
One side not measured
Intelligence
AA Intelligence Index
GLM 5
GLM 5 leads, 27.9 against 26.6.
Same board, both measured
Reasoning
GPQA Diamond
No call
Only GLM 5 has a GPQA Diamond result, 83.3%.
Directional only
Math
AIME
No call
Only GLM 5 has a AIME result, 91.7%.
Directional only
Knowledge
MMLU Pro
No call
Only GLM 5 has a MMLU Pro result, 86.0%.
Directional only
Web design
Design Arena: websites
GLM 5 Turbo
GLM 5 Turbo leads, 1262 against 1247.
Same board, both measured
Long documents
Listed context window
GLM 5
GLM 5 takes 205K tokens against 203K.
Listed by OpenRouter
Everyday cost
1K input + 500 output tokens
GLM 5
GLM 5 $0.0026, GLM 5 Turbo $0.0032 per turn.
List prices
Cost per solved task
One SWE-bench Verified task, solved
No call
Only GLM 5 has the number, $0.63.
Directional only
At a glance
- Coding index
- GLM 5 41.7 from 3 benchmarks, GLM 5 Turbo not benchmarked.
- Widest category
- Coding, 7.1 points apart on average over 2 shared benchmarks.
- Widest single gap
- Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run): GLM 5 43.2% against GLM 5 Turbo 33.3%, 9.8 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
- Output price
- GLM 5 $3.20 against GLM 5 Turbo $4.00 per million output tokens, 1.3x apart.
- Context window
- GLM 5 takes 205K tokens, GLM 5 Turbo 203K.
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.
| Category | GLM 5 | Bars | GLM 5 Turbo | Ties |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | 2 | 0 | ||
| Intelligence | 1 | 0 | ||
| Agentic work | 0 | 1 | ||
| Reasoning | 1 | 1 | ||
| Web design | 0 | 8 | ||
| General | 1 | 1 | ||
| All shared boards | 5 | 11 |
CodingLike-for-likeSix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index20
| Benchmark | GLM 5 | GLM 5 Turbo | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench Verified | 72.8% | Not measured | Only GLM 5 measured |
| SWE-bench Multilingual | 69.7% | Not measured | Only GLM 5 measured |
| LMArena WebDev | 1435 | Not measured | Only GLM 5 measured |
| LiveCodeBench (Vals AI) | 81.9% | Not measured | Only GLM 5 measured |
| SWE-bench Verified (Vals AI) | 71.4% | Not measured | Only GLM 5 measured |
| Vibe Code Bench (Vals AI) | 23.4% | Not measured | Only GLM 5 measured |
| Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run) | 43.2% | 33.3% | GLM 5 |
| Terminal-Bench | 52.4% | Not measured | Only GLM 5 measured |
| WeirdML | 48.2% | Not measured | Only GLM 5 measured |
| ALE-Bench | 765.6 | 634.0 | GLM 5 |
| LMArena Text: coding | 1461 | Not measured | Only GLM 5 measured |
| LMArena Text: software and IT | 1460 | Not measured | Only GLM 5 measured |
| LMArena WebDev: React | 1424 | Not measured | Only GLM 5 measured |
| LMArena WebDev: HTML | 1450 | Not measured | Only GLM 5 measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 25 boards here | |||
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index10
| Benchmark | GLM 5 | GLM 5 Turbo | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Intelligence Index | 27.9 | 26.6 | GLM 5 |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 145.8 | Not measured | Only GLM 5 measured |
Agentic workLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
| Benchmark | GLM 5 | GLM 5 Turbo | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Design Arena: agents building full-stack apps | 1123 | Not measured | Only GLM 5 measured |
| Design Arena: agents building mobile apps | 1136 | Not measured | Only GLM 5 measured |
| Design Arena: agents building Android apps | 1146 | Not measured | Only GLM 5 measured |
| Design Arena: agents building Godot games | 1144 | Not measured | Only GLM 5 measured |
| Design Arena: HTML slides | 1148 | Not measured | Only GLM 5 measured |
| τ²-Bench Telecom | 98.2% | 98.5% | GLM 5 Turbo |
| Vending-Bench 2 | $4,432 | Not measured | Only GLM 5 measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 34 boards here | |||
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index11
| Benchmark | GLM 5 | GLM 5 Turbo | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 83.3% | Not measured | Only GLM 5 measured |
| GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run) | 82.0% | 84.7% | GLM 5 Turbo |
| Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run) | 29.3% | 27.8% | GLM 5 |
| GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run) | 87.8% | Not measured | Only GLM 5 measured |
| ARC-AGI | 44.7% | Not measured | Only GLM 5 measured |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 4.9% | Not measured | Only GLM 5 measured |
| SimpleBench | 53.2% | Not measured | Only GLM 5 measured |
| LMArena Text: hard prompts | 1452 | Not measured | Only GLM 5 measured |
| LMArena Text: expert | 1454 | Not measured | Only GLM 5 measured |
| LMArena Text: hard prompts in English | 1460 | Not measured | Only GLM 5 measured |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 75.0% | Not measured | Only GLM 5 measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 11 boards here | |||
MathDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index4 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | GLM 5 | GLM 5 Turbo | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AIME | 91.7% | Not measured | Only GLM 5 measured |
| OTIS Mock AIME | 80.0% | Not measured | Only GLM 5 measured |
| LMArena Text: math | 1440 | Not measured | Only GLM 5 measured |
| LMArena Text: mathematical work | 1451 | Not measured | Only GLM 5 measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 9 boards here | |||
KnowledgeDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index10 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | GLM 5 | GLM 5 Turbo | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMLU Pro | 86.0% | Not measured | Only GLM 5 measured |
| LegalBench (Vals AI) | 84.1% | Not measured | Only GLM 5 measured |
| CaseLaw (Vals AI) | 52.5% | Not measured | Only GLM 5 measured |
| CorpFin (Vals AI) | 62.9% | Not measured | Only GLM 5 measured |
| TaxEval (Vals AI) | 70.0% | Not measured | Only GLM 5 measured |
| MedQA (Vals AI) | 94.3% | Not measured | Only GLM 5 measured |
| LMArena Text: science | 1460 | Not measured | Only GLM 5 measured |
| LMArena Text: medicine and healthcare | 1455 | Not measured | Only GLM 5 measured |
| LMArena Text: legal and government | 1453 | Not measured | Only GLM 5 measured |
| LMArena Text: business and finance | 1430 | Not measured | Only GLM 5 measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 8 boards here | |||
Web designLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index08
| Benchmark | GLM 5 | GLM 5 Turbo | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Design Arena: websites | 1247 | 1262 | GLM 5 Turbo |
| Design Arena: UI components | 1230 | 1263 | GLM 5 Turbo |
| Design Arena: game dev | 1234 | 1248 | GLM 5 Turbo |
| Design Arena: data viz | 1228 | 1264 | GLM 5 Turbo |
| Design Arena: 3D | 1229 | 1248 | GLM 5 Turbo |
| Design Arena: all code categories | 1246 | 1262 | GLM 5 Turbo |
| Design Arena: SVG | 1168 | 1206 | GLM 5 Turbo |
| Design Arena: ASCII art | 1147 | 1160 | GLM 5 Turbo |
| Neither model has a result on the other 1 board here | |||
GeneralLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index11
| Benchmark | GLM 5 | GLM 5 Turbo | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| IFBench | 72.3% | 73.2% | GLM 5 Turbo |
| Long context reasoning (AA-LCR) | 75.7% | 71.7% | GLM 5 |
| CL-bench | 18.7% | Not measured | Only GLM 5 measured |
| LMArena Text | 1446 | Not measured | Only GLM 5 measured |
| LMArena Text: instruction following | 1428 | Not measured | Only GLM 5 measured |
| LMArena Text: creative writing | 1438 | Not measured | Only GLM 5 measured |
| LMArena Text: English | 1458 | Not measured | Only GLM 5 measured |
| LMArena Text: non-English | 1430 | Not measured | Only GLM 5 measured |
| LMArena Text: Chinese | 1511 | Not measured | Only GLM 5 measured |
| LMArena Text: German | 1447 | Not measured | Only GLM 5 measured |
| LMArena Text: Japanese | 1416 | Not measured | Only GLM 5 measured |
| LMArena Text: Korean | 1423 | Not measured | Only GLM 5 measured |
| LMArena Text: French | 1456 | Not measured | Only GLM 5 measured |
| LMArena Text: Spanish | 1454 | Not measured | Only GLM 5 measured |
| LMArena Text: Russian | 1436 | Not measured | Only GLM 5 measured |
| LMArena Text: Polish | 1434 | Not measured | Only GLM 5 measured |
| LMArena Text: multi-turn | 1456 | Not measured | Only GLM 5 measured |
| LMArena Text: longer queries | 1446 | Not measured | Only GLM 5 measured |
| LMArena Text: writing and language | 1437 | Not measured | Only GLM 5 measured |
| LMArena Text: entertainment and media | 1426 | Not measured | Only GLM 5 measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 26 boards here | |||
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | GLM 5 | GLM 5 Turbo | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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 costs less
Repository review
50K input + 3K output tokens
GLM 5 costs less
Agent loop
200K input + 10K output tokens
GLM 5 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.
| Specification | Z.ai GLM 5 | Z.ai GLM 5 Turbo |
|---|---|---|
| Maker | Z.ai | Z.ai |
| Weights | Open weights | No public weights listed |
| Released | February 11, 2026 | March 15, 2026 |
| Context window | 205K | 203K |
| Input $/Mtok | $1.00 | $1.20 |
| Output $/Mtok | $3.20 | $4.00 |
| Coding index | 41.7 | Not benchmarked |
| Independent measurements behind it | 3 | 0 |
| Cost per solved task | $0.63 | Not computable |
| Source | OpenRouter listing | OpenRouter listing |
Questions
Is GLM 5 better than GLM 5 Turbo for coding?
Only GLM 5 has a coding score, 41.7 on the Vibe Coding Index; GLM 5 Turbo has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Pick GLM 5 Turbo for work measured by τ²-Bench Telecom or GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run), where it leads.
Which is cheaper, GLM 5 or GLM 5 Turbo?
GLM 5 costs $1.00 per million input tokens and $3.20 per million output tokens; GLM 5 Turbo costs $1.20 and $4.00. Cost per solved task is known for GLM 5 only.
Which has the bigger context window, GLM 5 or GLM 5 Turbo?
GLM 5, with 205K tokens against 203K.
How many benchmarks is the GLM 5 vs GLM 5 Turbo comparison based on?
16 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 21, 2026. GLM 5's coding index rests on 3 independent benchmarks and GLM 5 Turbo's on 0. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.