Model comparison
Claude 2.1 vs GLM-5.1
GLM-5.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 47.8 to 25.2 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 4 shared benchmarks.
Summary
- They share 4 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude 2.1 scores higher in 0 categories and GLM-5.1 in 4 categories; 4 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where GLM-5.1 leads 49.7 to 10.2.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 1.9% for Claude 2.1 and 93.3% for GLM-5.1.
- GLM-5.1 has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Claude 2.1 | GLM-5.1 | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | Z.ai (Zhipu) |
| Noometry Index | 25.2 | 47.8 |
| Released | 2023-11-21 | 2026-04-07 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | — | 200K |
| Max output | — | 131K |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | $1.40 |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | $4.40 |
| Results tracked | 7 | 41 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding GLM-5.1 leads
Claude 2.1: 26.2 (#327), GLM-5.1: 48.7 (#55)
| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | GLM-5.1 |
|---|---|---|
| WeirdML | 7.1% | 57.1% |
| SWE-bench Verified | — | 74.2% |
| LMArena WebDev | — | 1508 |
| SciCode | — | 43.8% |
| LMArena Coding | — | 1485 |
| ALE-Bench | — | 887.1 |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Claude 2.1: —, GLM-5.1: 24.9 (#113)
| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | GLM-5.1 |
|---|---|---|
| APEX-Agents | — | 40.9% |
| ExploitBench | — | 18.1% |
| GBAEval | — | 0% |
| Vending-Bench 2 | — | 5,634 |
Reasoning GLM-5.1 leads
Claude 2.1: 21.4 (#221), GLM-5.1: 39.1 (#60)
| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | GLM-5.1 |
|---|---|---|
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 119.27 | 149.84 |
| SimpleBench | — | 55.1% |
| NYT Connections (extended) | — | 77.7% |
| CritPt | — | 4.6% |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 19% |
| Thematic Generalization | — | 69.8% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | — | 1472 |
| DTBench | 51% | — |
| ForecastBench | 54.2 | — |
Math GLM-5.1 leads
Claude 2.1: 10.2 (#315), GLM-5.1: 49.7 (#60)
| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | GLM-5.1 |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 1.9% | 93.3% |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | — | 36.8% |
| MathArena Final-Answer Competitions | — | 67.1% |
| ProofBench | — | 22.2% |
| LMArena Math | — | 1473 |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | — | 33.4% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | — | 12.5% |
Knowledge GLM-5.1 leads
Claude 2.1: 15.4 (#292), GLM-5.1: 54.9 (#50)
| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | GLM-5.1 |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 33% | 89.9% |
| SimpleQA Verified | — | 34% |
| LMArena Expert | — | 1476 |
| MMLU | 73.5% | — |
Multilingual Not comparable
Claude 2.1: —, GLM-5.1: 55.0 (#36)
| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | GLM-5.1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | — | 1447 |
| LMArena Chinese | — | 1515 |
| LMArena French | — | 1474 |
| LMArena German | — | 1465 |
| LMArena Japanese | — | 1434 |
| LMArena Korean | — | 1418 |
| LMArena Russian | — | 1454 |
| LMArena Spanish | — | 1469 |
Instruction Following Not comparable
Claude 2.1: —, GLM-5.1: 76.3 (#42)
| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | GLM-5.1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | — | 1451 |
Long Context Not comparable
Claude 2.1: —, GLM-5.1: 44.9 (#53)
| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | GLM-5.1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | — | 1466 |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
Claude 2.1: —, GLM-5.1: 66.9 (#31)
| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | GLM-5.1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | — | 1461 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | — | 1453 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | — | 1592 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | — | 1472 |
Frequently asked questions
Is Claude 2.1 better than GLM-5.1?
GLM-5.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 47.8 to 25.2 on the Noometry Index.
Is Claude 2.1 or GLM-5.1 better for coding?
GLM-5.1 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 48.7 versus 26.2 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Claude 2.1 and GLM-5.1 share?
4 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude 2.1 has 7 scored results on Noometry and GLM-5.1 has 41.