Model comparison

DeepSeek-V2.5 (Sep 2024) vs GLM-5.1

GLM-5.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 47.8 to 37.6 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 17 shared benchmarks.

DeepSeek-V2.5 (Sep 2024) DeepSeek

37.6

Rank #200 Confirmed

GLM-5.1 Z.ai (Zhipu)

47.8

Rank #59 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 17 benchmarks with published results for both. DeepSeek-V2.5 (Sep 2024) scores higher in 0 categories and GLM-5.1 in 8 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in knowledge, where GLM-5.1 leads 54.9 to 34.8.

Side by side

DeepSeek-V2.5 (Sep 2024) and GLM-5.1 specifications
DeepSeek-V2.5 (Sep 2024)GLM-5.1
ProviderDeepSeekZ.ai (Zhipu)
Noometry Index37.647.8
Released2024-09-062026-04-07
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window—200K
Max output—131K
Input $ / M tokens—$1.40
Output $ / M tokens—$4.40
Results tracked2241

Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry

Category by category

Coding GLM-5.1 leads

DeepSeek-V2.5 (Sep 2024): 31.7 (#281), GLM-5.1: 48.7 (#55)

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkDeepSeek-V2.5 (Sep 2024)GLM-5.1
LMArena Coding13091485
SWE-bench Verified—74.2%
Aider Polyglot17.8%—
LMArena WebDev—1508
SciCode—43.8%
WeirdML—57.1%
BigCodeBench Instruct48.6%—
BigCodeBench Complete53.2%—
ALE-Bench—887.1
HumanEval+83.5%—
MBPP+74.1%—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

DeepSeek-V2.5 (Sep 2024): —, GLM-5.1: 24.9 (#113)

Agentic & Tool Use benchmarks
BenchmarkDeepSeek-V2.5 (Sep 2024)GLM-5.1
APEX-Agents—40.9%
ExploitBench—18.1%
GBAEval—0%
Vending-Bench 2—5,634

Reasoning GLM-5.1 leads

DeepSeek-V2.5 (Sep 2024): 25.6 (#145), GLM-5.1: 39.1 (#60)

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkDeepSeek-V2.5 (Sep 2024)GLM-5.1
LMArena Hard Prompts12891472
SimpleBench—55.1%
NYT Connections (extended)—77.7%
CritPt—4.6%
Chess Puzzles—19%
Thematic Generalization—69.8%
Epoch Capabilities Index—149.84

Math GLM-5.1 leads

DeepSeek-V2.5 (Sep 2024): 35.9 (#177), GLM-5.1: 49.7 (#60)

Math benchmarks
BenchmarkDeepSeek-V2.5 (Sep 2024)GLM-5.1
LMArena Math12881473
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)—36.8%
MathArena Final-Answer Competitions—67.1%
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025—93.3%
ProofBench—22.2%
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)—33.4%
FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1)—12.5%

Knowledge GLM-5.1 leads

DeepSeek-V2.5 (Sep 2024): 34.8 (#193), GLM-5.1: 54.9 (#50)

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkDeepSeek-V2.5 (Sep 2024)GLM-5.1
LMArena Expert12661476
GPQA Diamond—89.9%
SimpleQA Verified—34%

Multilingual GLM-5.1 leads

DeepSeek-V2.5 (Sep 2024): 42.5 (#193), GLM-5.1: 55.0 (#36)

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkDeepSeek-V2.5 (Sep 2024)GLM-5.1
LMArena Non-English12731447
LMArena Chinese13181515
LMArena French12891474
LMArena German12581465
LMArena Japanese12281434
LMArena Korean12091418
LMArena Russian12891454
LMArena Spanish12481469

Instruction Following GLM-5.1 leads

DeepSeek-V2.5 (Sep 2024): 67.5 (#194), GLM-5.1: 76.3 (#42)

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkDeepSeek-V2.5 (Sep 2024)GLM-5.1
LMArena Instruction Following12801451

Long Context GLM-5.1 leads

DeepSeek-V2.5 (Sep 2024): 39.5 (#174), GLM-5.1: 44.9 (#53)

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkDeepSeek-V2.5 (Sep 2024)GLM-5.1
LMArena Longer Query13011466

Writing & Preference GLM-5.1 leads

DeepSeek-V2.5 (Sep 2024): 49.8 (#187), GLM-5.1: 66.9 (#31)

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkDeepSeek-V2.5 (Sep 2024)GLM-5.1
LMArena Text12941461
LMArena Creative Writing12851453
LMArena Multi-Turn12971472
EQ-Bench Creative Writing—1592

Frequently asked questions

Is DeepSeek-V2.5 (Sep 2024) better than GLM-5.1?

GLM-5.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 47.8 to 37.6 on the Noometry Index.

Is DeepSeek-V2.5 (Sep 2024) or GLM-5.1 better for coding?

GLM-5.1 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 48.7 versus 31.7 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do DeepSeek-V2.5 (Sep 2024) and GLM-5.1 share?

17 benchmarks have published results for both models. DeepSeek-V2.5 (Sep 2024) has 22 scored results on Noometry and GLM-5.1 has 41.

Related comparisons

Go deeper