Model comparison

GLM-4.6V vs GLM-5.1

GLM-5.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 47.8 to 41.3 on the Noometry Index. GLM-4.6V costs 4.8× less per token, which makes it the better buy when GLM-5.1's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Last verified . 11 shared benchmarks.

GLM-4.6V Z.ai (Zhipu)

41.3

Rank #137 Confirmed

GLM-5.1 Z.ai (Zhipu)

47.8

Rank #59 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 11 benchmarks with published results for both. GLM-4.6V scores higher in 0 categories and GLM-5.1 in 7 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in knowledge, where GLM-5.1 leads 54.9 to 38.0.
  • GLM-4.6V is cheaper at $0.30 / $0.90 per million input/output tokens, against $1.40 / $4.40 for GLM-5.1.
  • GLM-5.1 accepts more context: 200K tokens versus 128K.

Side by side

GLM-4.6V and GLM-5.1 specifications
GLM-4.6VGLM-5.1
ProviderZ.ai (Zhipu)Z.ai (Zhipu)
Noometry Index41.347.8
Released2025-12-082026-04-07
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window128K200K
Max output33K131K
Input $ / M tokens$0.30$1.40
Output $ / M tokens$0.90$4.40
Results tracked1241

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

Category by category

Coding GLM-5.1 leads

GLM-4.6V: 40.9 (#128), GLM-5.1: 48.7 (#55)

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-4.6VGLM-5.1
LMArena Coding13901485
SWE-bench Verified—74.2%
LMArena WebDev—1508
SciCode—43.8%
WeirdML—57.1%
ALE-Bench—887.1

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

GLM-4.6V: —, GLM-5.1: 24.9 (#113)

Agentic & Tool Use benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-4.6VGLM-5.1
APEX-Agents—40.9%
ExploitBench—18.1%
GBAEval—0%
Vending-Bench 2—5,634

Reasoning GLM-5.1 leads

GLM-4.6V: 27.6 (#115), GLM-5.1: 39.1 (#60)

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-4.6VGLM-5.1
LMArena Hard Prompts13681472
SimpleBench—55.1%
NYT Connections (extended)—77.7%
CritPt—4.6%
Chess Puzzles—19%
Thematic Generalization—69.8%
Epoch Capabilities Index—149.84

Math Not comparable

GLM-4.6V: —, GLM-5.1: 49.7 (#60)

Knowledge GLM-5.1 leads

GLM-4.6V: 38.0 (#149), GLM-5.1: 54.9 (#50)

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-4.6VGLM-5.1
LMArena Expert13711476
GPQA Diamond—89.9%
SimpleQA Verified—34%

Multimodal Not comparable

GLM-4.6V: 34.8 (#90), GLM-5.1: —

Multimodal benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-4.6VGLM-5.1
LMArena Vision1164—

Multilingual GLM-5.1 leads

GLM-4.6V: 48.6 (#141), GLM-5.1: 55.0 (#36)

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-4.6VGLM-5.1
LMArena Non-English13591447
LMArena Chinese14251515
LMArena Russian13401454
LMArena French—1474
LMArena German—1465
LMArena Japanese—1434
LMArena Korean—1418
LMArena Spanish—1469

Instruction Following GLM-5.1 leads

GLM-4.6V: 71.4 (#151), GLM-5.1: 76.3 (#42)

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-4.6VGLM-5.1
LMArena Instruction Following13521451

Long Context GLM-5.1 leads

GLM-4.6V: 41.3 (#143), GLM-5.1: 44.9 (#53)

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-4.6VGLM-5.1
LMArena Longer Query13581466

Writing & Preference GLM-5.1 leads

GLM-4.6V: 56.6 (#137), GLM-5.1: 66.9 (#31)

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-4.6VGLM-5.1
LMArena Text13771461
LMArena Creative Writing13471453
LMArena Multi-Turn13601472
EQ-Bench Creative Writing—1592

Frequently asked questions

Is GLM-4.6V better than GLM-5.1?

GLM-5.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 47.8 to 41.3 on the Noometry Index. GLM-4.6V costs 4.8× less per token, which makes it the better buy when GLM-5.1's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Which is cheaper, GLM-4.6V or GLM-5.1?

GLM-4.6V is cheaper. It lists at $0.30 per million input tokens and $0.90 per million output tokens; GLM-5.1 lists at $1.40 and $4.40.

Is GLM-4.6V or GLM-5.1 better for coding?

GLM-5.1 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 48.7 versus 40.9 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

GLM-5.1 does, with 200K tokens against 128K.

How many benchmarks do GLM-4.6V and GLM-5.1 share?

11 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-4.6V has 12 scored results on Noometry and GLM-5.1 has 41.

Related comparisons

Go deeper