Model comparison
GLM-4.6V vs GPT-5.1-Codex
GLM-4.6V is the stronger model overall, scoring 40.9 to 38.2 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 0 shared benchmarks.
Summary
- GLM-4.6V is cheaper at $0.30 / $0.90 per million input/output tokens, against $1.25 / $10 for GPT-5.1-Codex.
- GPT-5.1-Codex accepts more context: 400K tokens versus 128K.
- GLM-4.6V has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| GLM-4.6V | GPT-5.1-Codex | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Z.ai (Zhipu) | OpenAI |
| Noometry Index | 40.9 | 38.2 |
| Released | 2025-12-08 | 2025-11-12 |
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |
| Context window | 128K | 400K |
| Max output | 33K | 128K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.30 | $1.25 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $0.90 | $10 |
| Results tracked | 12 | 6 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding GPT-5.1-Codex leads
GLM-4.6V: 40.2 (#128), GPT-5.1-Codex: 41.7 (#107)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | GPT-5.1-Codex |
|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench Verified (bash only) | — | 66% |
| LMArena WebDev | — | 1337 |
| LMArena Coding | 1390 | — |
| ALE-Bench | — | 1,245 |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
GLM-4.6V: —, GPT-5.1-Codex: 37.8 (#32)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | GPT-5.1-Codex |
|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench | — | 60.4% |
| METR Time Horizons | — | 70.8% |
Reasoning Not comparable
GLM-4.6V: 26.5 (#117), GPT-5.1-Codex: —
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | GPT-5.1-Codex |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1368 | — |
Math Not comparable
GLM-4.6V: —, GPT-5.1-Codex: 29.3 (#218)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | GPT-5.1-Codex |
|---|---|---|
| ProofBench | — | 9% |
Knowledge Not comparable
GLM-4.6V: 37.4 (#148), GPT-5.1-Codex: —
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | GPT-5.1-Codex |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1372 | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
GLM-4.6V: 34.2 (#83), GPT-5.1-Codex: —
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | GPT-5.1-Codex |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1164 | — |
Multilingual Not comparable
GLM-4.6V: 48.8 (#135), GPT-5.1-Codex: —
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | GPT-5.1-Codex |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1359 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 1426 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1341 | — |
Instruction Following Not comparable
GLM-4.6V: 71.6 (#145), GPT-5.1-Codex: —
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | GPT-5.1-Codex |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1351 | — |
Long Context Not comparable
GLM-4.6V: 41.3 (#138), GPT-5.1-Codex: —
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | GPT-5.1-Codex |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1358 | — |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
GLM-4.6V: 56.8 (#132), GPT-5.1-Codex: —
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | GPT-5.1-Codex |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1377 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1347 | — |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1359 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is GLM-4.6V better than GPT-5.1-Codex?
GLM-4.6V is the stronger model overall, scoring 40.9 to 38.2 on the Noometry Index.
Which is cheaper, GLM-4.6V or GPT-5.1-Codex?
GLM-4.6V is cheaper. It lists at $0.30 per million input tokens and $0.90 per million output tokens; GPT-5.1-Codex lists at $1.25 and $10.
Is GLM-4.6V or GPT-5.1-Codex better for coding?
GPT-5.1-Codex scores higher on coding benchmarks: 41.7 versus 40.2 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
GPT-5.1-Codex does, with 400K tokens against 128K.
How many benchmarks do GLM-4.6V and GPT-5.1-Codex share?
0 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-4.6V has 12 scored results on Noometry and GPT-5.1-Codex has 6.