Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

GLM 5 vs Muse Ember

Muse Ember leads GLM 5 on coding, 64.9 to 41.6 on the Vibe Coding Index, and Muse Ember costs 6.4x less per output token ($0.50 vs $3.20 per million). Updated November 14, 2026; 4 benchmarks have a result for both.

GLM 5Z.ai
Coding
41.6
Overall
57.9
Output $/M
$3.20
0
Muse EmberMeta
Coding
64.9
Overall
No data
Output $/M
$0.50
4
vs boards won of 4 shared

GLM 5 or Muse Ember: which to pick

Pick Muse Ember for coding: it scores 64.9 on the Vibe Coding Index against 41.6 for GLM 5.

GLM 5 is neither cheaper nor larger in context, and leads no benchmark both models were measured on.

Shared results
4
GLM 5 only
76
Muse Ember only
11
Like-for-like categories
1 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 41.6 from 3 benchmarks, Muse Ember 64.9 from 3 benchmarks.
Widest category
Coding, 34.9 points apart on average over 4 shared benchmarks.
Widest single gap
Vibe Code Bench (Vals AI): GLM 5 23.4% against Muse Ember 83.7%, 60.3 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
Output price
GLM 5 $3.20 against Muse Ember $0.50 per million output tokens, 6.4x apart.
Context window
GLM 5 takes 205K tokens, Muse Ember 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 5BarsMuse EmberTies
Coding04
All shared boards04
CodingLike-for-likeSix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index04
Coding benchmarks for GLM 5 and Muse Ember
BenchmarkGLM 5Muse EmberLeader
SWE-bench Verified72.8%Not measuredOnly GLM 5 measured
SWE-bench Multilingual69.7%Not measuredOnly GLM 5 measured
LMArena WebDev14351609Muse Ember
LiveCodeBench (Vals AI)81.9%Not measuredOnly GLM 5 measured
SWE-bench Verified (Vals AI)71.4%Not measuredOnly GLM 5 measured
Terminal-Bench 4 (Vals AI)Not measured39.4%Only Muse Ember measured
Vibe Code Bench (Vals AI)23.4%83.7%Muse Ember
Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run)43.2%Not measuredOnly GLM 5 measured
Terminal-Bench 4.0 (Artificial Analysis run)Not measured40.9%Only Muse Ember measured
FrontierCode 2.0Not measured27.2%Only Muse Ember measured
Terminal-Bench52.4%Not measuredOnly GLM 5 measured
WeirdML48.2%Not measuredOnly GLM 5 measured
ALE-Bench765.6Not measuredOnly GLM 5 measured
LMArena Text: coding1462Not measuredOnly GLM 5 measured
LMArena Text: software and IT1460Not measuredOnly GLM 5 measured
LMArena WebDev: React14231616Muse Ember
LMArena WebDev: HTML14491621Muse Ember
SWE Atlas: Codebase QnA20.5%Not measuredOnly GLM 5 measured
SWE Atlas: Refactoring24.2%Not measuredOnly GLM 5 measured
SWE Atlas: Test Writing28.7%Not measuredOnly GLM 5 measured
Terminal-Bench 2.052.4%Not measuredOnly GLM 5 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 31 boards here
IntelligenceDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index1 board, none shared
Intelligence benchmarks for GLM 5 and Muse Ember
BenchmarkGLM 5Muse EmberLeader
Epoch Capabilities Index146.5Not measuredOnly GLM 5 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 1 board here
Agentic workDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index11 boards, none shared
Agentic work benchmarks for GLM 5 and Muse Ember
BenchmarkGLM 5Muse EmberLeader
Design Arena: agents building full-stack apps1097Not measuredOnly GLM 5 measured
Design Arena: agents building mobile apps1128Not measuredOnly GLM 5 measured
Design Arena: agents building Android apps1136Not measuredOnly GLM 5 measured
Design Arena: agents building Godot games1144Not measuredOnly GLM 5 measured
Design Arena: HTML slides1043Not measuredOnly GLM 5 measured
Tax Agent Bench (Vals AI)Not measured38.2%Only Muse Ember measured
Legal Research Bench (Vals AI)Not measured49.0%Only Muse Ember measured
Harvey's Legal Agent Benchmark (Vals AI)Not measured25.0%Only Muse Ember measured
τ²-Bench Telecom98.2%Not measuredOnly GLM 5 measured
APEX-AgentsNot measured64.3%Only Muse Ember measured
Vending-Bench 2$4,432Not measuredOnly GLM 5 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 33 boards here
ReasoningDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index13 boards, none shared
Reasoning benchmarks for GLM 5 and Muse Ember
BenchmarkGLM 5Muse EmberLeader
GPQA Diamond83.3%Not measuredOnly GLM 5 measured
GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run)82.0%Not measuredOnly GLM 5 measured
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)29.3%Not measuredOnly GLM 5 measured
HLE-Diamond (Artificial Analysis run)Not measured25.1%Only Muse Ember measured
CritPt v2, hard subset (Artificial Analysis run)Not measured39.0%Only Muse Ember measured
GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run)87.8%Not measuredOnly GLM 5 measured
ARC-AGI44.7%Not measuredOnly GLM 5 measured
ARC-AGI-24.9%Not measuredOnly GLM 5 measured
SimpleBench53.2%Not measuredOnly GLM 5 measured
LMArena Text: hard prompts1452Not measuredOnly GLM 5 measured
LMArena Text: expert1455Not measuredOnly GLM 5 measured
LMArena Text: hard prompts in English1460Not measuredOnly GLM 5 measured
Kagi LLM Benchmark75.0%Not measuredOnly GLM 5 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 13 boards here
MathDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index5 boards, none shared
Math benchmarks for GLM 5 and Muse Ember
BenchmarkGLM 5Muse EmberLeader
AIME91.7%Not measuredOnly GLM 5 measured
OTIS Mock AIME80.0%Not measuredOnly GLM 5 measured
LMArena Text: math1439Not measuredOnly GLM 5 measured
LMArena Text: mathematical work1450Not measuredOnly GLM 5 measured
MathArena19.0%Not measuredOnly GLM 5 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 9 boards here
KnowledgeDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index11 boards, none shared
Knowledge benchmarks for GLM 5 and Muse Ember
BenchmarkGLM 5Muse EmberLeader
MMLU Pro86.0%Not measuredOnly GLM 5 measured
LegalBench (Vals AI)84.1%Not measuredOnly GLM 5 measured
CaseLaw (Vals AI)52.5%Not measuredOnly GLM 5 measured
CorpFin (Vals AI)62.9%Not measuredOnly GLM 5 measured
TaxEval (Vals AI)70.0%Not measuredOnly GLM 5 measured
MedQA (Vals AI)94.3%Not measuredOnly GLM 5 measured
AA-OmniscienceNot measured7.7Only Muse Ember measured
LMArena Text: science1460Not measuredOnly GLM 5 measured
LMArena Text: medicine and healthcare1454Not measuredOnly GLM 5 measured
LMArena Text: legal and government1454Not measuredOnly GLM 5 measured
LMArena Text: business and finance1431Not measuredOnly GLM 5 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 10 boards here
Web designDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index8 boards, none shared
Web design benchmarks for GLM 5 and Muse Ember
BenchmarkGLM 5Muse EmberLeader
Design Arena: websites1239Not measuredOnly GLM 5 measured
Design Arena: UI components1221Not measuredOnly GLM 5 measured
Design Arena: game dev1223Not measuredOnly GLM 5 measured
Design Arena: data viz1225Not measuredOnly GLM 5 measured
Design Arena: 3D1208Not measuredOnly GLM 5 measured
Design Arena: all code categories1236Not measuredOnly GLM 5 measured
Design Arena: SVG1157Not measuredOnly GLM 5 measured
Design Arena: ASCII art1142Not measuredOnly GLM 5 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 1 board here
GeneralDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index21 boards, none shared
General benchmarks for GLM 5 and Muse Ember
BenchmarkGLM 5Muse EmberLeader
Vals IndexNot measured60.5%Only Muse Ember measured
IFBench72.3%Not measuredOnly GLM 5 measured
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR)75.7%Not measuredOnly GLM 5 measured
CL-bench18.7%Not measuredOnly GLM 5 measured
LMArena Text1446Not measuredOnly GLM 5 measured
LMArena Text: instruction following1428Not measuredOnly GLM 5 measured
LMArena Text: creative writing1437Not measuredOnly GLM 5 measured
LMArena Text: English1457Not measuredOnly GLM 5 measured
LMArena Text: non-English1431Not measuredOnly GLM 5 measured
LMArena Text: Chinese1512Not measuredOnly GLM 5 measured
LMArena Text: German1447Not measuredOnly GLM 5 measured
LMArena Text: Japanese1414Not measuredOnly GLM 5 measured
LMArena Text: Korean1419Not measuredOnly GLM 5 measured
LMArena Text: French1457Not measuredOnly GLM 5 measured
LMArena Text: Spanish1454Not measuredOnly GLM 5 measured
LMArena Text: Russian1437Not measuredOnly GLM 5 measured
LMArena Text: Polish1433Not measuredOnly GLM 5 measured
LMArena Text: multi-turn1456Not measuredOnly GLM 5 measured
LMArena Text: longer queries1446Not measuredOnly GLM 5 measured
LMArena Text: writing and language1436Not measuredOnly GLM 5 measured
LMArena Text: entertainment and media1426Not measuredOnly GLM 5 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 28 boards here
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
Image generation benchmarks for GLM 5 and Muse Ember
BenchmarkGLM 5Muse EmberLeader
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$0.0026Fits in one request
Muse Ember$0.0003Fits in one request

Muse Ember costs less

Repository review

50K input + 3K output tokens

GLM 5$0.060Fits in one request
Muse Ember$0.0065Fits in one request

Muse Ember costs less

Agent loop

200K input + 10K output tokens

GLM 5$0.232Exceeds the context window
Muse Ember$0.025Fits in one request

Muse Ember 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 and Muse Ember
SpecificationZ.ai GLM 5Meta Muse Ember
MakerZ.aiMeta
WeightsOpen weightsNo public weights listed
ReleasedFebruary 11, 2026November 9, 2026
Context window205K1.05M
Input $/Mtok$1.00$0.10
Output $/Mtok$3.20$0.50
Coding index41.664.9
Independent measurements behind it33
Cost per solved task$0.63Not computable
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is GLM 5 better than Muse Ember for coding?

Pick Muse Ember for coding: it scores 64.9 on the Vibe Coding Index against 41.6 for GLM 5. GLM 5 is neither cheaper nor larger in context, and leads no benchmark both models were measured on.

Which is cheaper, GLM 5 or Muse Ember?

GLM 5 costs $1.00 per million input tokens and $3.20 per million output tokens; Muse Ember costs $0.10 and $0.50. Cost per solved task is known for GLM 5 only.

Which has the bigger context window, GLM 5 or Muse Ember?

Muse Ember, with 1.05M tokens against 205K.

How many benchmarks is the GLM 5 vs Muse Ember comparison based on?

4 benchmarks have a result for both models as of November 14, 2026. GLM 5's coding index rests on 3 independent benchmarks and Muse Ember's on 3. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.

Compare next

Embed this comparison on your site

Free under CC BY 4.0, while the source link stays visible. Preview the frame · Terms and other embeds

<iframe src="https://llmbenchmark.ai/embed/compare/glm-5-vs-meta-muse-ember" title="GLM 5 vs Muse Ember, LLMBenchmark.ai" width="100%" height="360" style="border:0;max-width:100%" loading="lazy"></iframe>
<p style="font:13px/1.4 sans-serif;margin:6px 0 0">Source: <a href="https://llmbenchmark.ai/compare/glm-5-vs-meta-muse-ember">LLMBenchmark.ai, GLM 5 vs Muse Ember</a></p>