Model comparison
GLM-5.1 vs Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning)
GLM-5.1 and Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) score almost the same on the Noometry Index (47.8 vs 48.6), so choose on price, context window or the category you care about most.
Last verified . 31 shared benchmarks.
Summary
- They share 31 benchmarks with published results for both. GLM-5.1 scores higher in 6 categories and Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) in 3 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in reasoning, where Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) leads 52.3 to 39.1.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is ProofBench: 22.2% for GLM-5.1 and 14% for Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning).
- Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) is cheaper at $1.25 / $2.50 per million input/output tokens, against $1.40 / $4.40 for GLM-5.1.
- Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 200K.
- GLM-5.1 has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| GLM-5.1 | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Z.ai (Zhipu) | xAI |
| Noometry Index | 47.8 | 48.6 |
| Released | 2026-04-07 | 2026-02-17 |
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |
| Context window | 200K | 1M |
| Max output | 131K | 30K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $1.40 | $1.25 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $4.40 | $2.50 |
| Results tracked | 41 | 46 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding GLM-5.1 leads
GLM-5.1: 48.7 (#55), Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 42.1 (#112)
| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena WebDev | 1508 | 1375 |
| WeirdML | 57.1% | 52.3% |
| LMArena Coding | 1485 | 1459 |
| ALE-Bench | 887.1 | 1,150 |
| SWE-bench Verified | 74.2% | — |
| SciCode | 43.8% | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) leads
GLM-5.1: 24.9 (#113), Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 34.4 (#46)
| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) |
|---|---|---|
| Vending-Bench 2 | 5,634 | 4,663 |
| Terminal-Bench | — | 57.3% |
| APEX-Agents | 40.9% | — |
| τ²-bench Banking | — | 18% |
| ExploitBench | 18.1% | — |
| GBAEval | 0% | — |
| LMArena Search | — | 1189 |
Reasoning Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) leads
GLM-5.1: 39.1 (#60), Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 52.3 (#32)
| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) |
|---|---|---|
| NYT Connections (extended) | 77.7% | 85.4% |
| Chess Puzzles | 19% | 24% |
| Thematic Generalization | 69.8% | 63.8% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1472 | 1451 |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 149.84 | 151.98 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | — | 65.1% |
| SimpleBench | 55.1% | — |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | — | 75% |
| ARC-AGI-1 | — | 89.5% |
| CritPt | 4.6% | — |
| DTBench | — | 90.1% |
| LMCA | — | 38.7% |
| ForecastBench | — | 61.4 |
Math GLM-5.1 leads
GLM-5.1: 49.7 (#60), Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 48.2 (#65)
| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) |
|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 36.8% | 44.9% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 93.3% | 92.2% |
| ProofBench | 22.2% | 14% |
| LMArena Math | 1473 | 1455 |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | — | 17.1% |
| MathArena Final-Answer Competitions | 67.1% | — |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 33.4% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | 12.5% | — |
Knowledge GLM-5.1 leads
GLM-5.1: 54.9 (#50), Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 52.8 (#60)
| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 89.9% | 89.3% |
| SimpleQA Verified | 34% | 30.2% |
| LMArena Expert | 1476 | 1439 |
Multimodal Not comparable
GLM-5.1: —, Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 33.3 (#98)
| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | — | 1263 |
| Blueprint-Bench 2 | — | 0% |
| LMArena Document | — | 1416 |
Multilingual Too close to call
GLM-5.1: 55.0 (#36), Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 54.5 (#40)
| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1447 | 1441 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1515 | 1481 |
| LMArena French | 1474 | 1476 |
| LMArena German | 1465 | 1465 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1434 | 1449 |
| LMArena Korean | 1418 | 1417 |
| LMArena Russian | 1454 | 1458 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1469 | 1443 |
Instruction Following GLM-5.1 leads
GLM-5.1: 76.3 (#42), Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 74.8 (#83)
| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1451 | 1420 |
Long Context Too close to call
GLM-5.1: 44.9 (#53), Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 45.5 (#34)
| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1466 | 1437 |
| CL-bench | — | 22.2% |
| CL-bench Life | — | 11.9% |
Writing & Preference GLM-5.1 leads
GLM-5.1: 66.9 (#31), Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 65.7 (#44)
| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1461 | 1451 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1453 | 1438 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1592 | 1574 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1472 | 1456 |
Frequently asked questions
Is GLM-5.1 better than Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning)?
GLM-5.1 and Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) score almost the same on the Noometry Index (47.8 vs 48.6), so choose on price, context window or the category you care about most.
Which is cheaper, GLM-5.1 or Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning)?
Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) is cheaper. It lists at $1.25 per million input tokens and $2.50 per million output tokens; GLM-5.1 lists at $1.40 and $4.40.
Is GLM-5.1 or Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) better for coding?
GLM-5.1 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 48.7 versus 42.1 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) does, with 1M tokens against 200K.
How many benchmarks do GLM-5.1 and Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) share?
31 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-5.1 has 41 scored results on Noometry and Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) has 46.