Model comparison
GLM-5.1 vs Hunyuan T1 20250711
GLM-5.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 47.6 to 41.8 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 13 shared benchmarks.
TencentSummary
- They share 13 benchmarks with published results for both. GLM-5.1 scores higher in 8 categories and Hunyuan T1 20250711 in 0 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in knowledge, where GLM-5.1 leads 55.0 to 38.1.
- GLM-5.1 has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| GLM-5.1 | Hunyuan T1 20250711 | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Z.ai (Zhipu) | Tencent |
| Noometry Index | 47.6 | 41.8 |
| Released | 2026-04-07 | — |
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |
| Context window | 200K | — |
| Max output | 131K | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | $1.40 | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | $4.40 | — |
| Results tracked | 41 | 13 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding GLM-5.1 leads
GLM-5.1: 48.5 (#52), Hunyuan T1 20250711: 40.2 (#129)
| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | Hunyuan T1 20250711 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1486 | 1389 |
| SWE-bench Verified | 74.2% | — |
| LMArena WebDev | 1509 | — |
| SciCode | 43.8% | — |
| WeirdML | 57.1% | — |
| ALE-Bench | 887.1 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
GLM-5.1: 24.8 (#106), Hunyuan T1 20250711: —
| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | Hunyuan T1 20250711 |
|---|---|---|
| APEX-Agents | 40.9% | — |
| ExploitBench | 18.1% | — |
| GBAEval | 0% | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | 5,634 | — |
Reasoning GLM-5.1 leads
GLM-5.1: 38.2 (#57), Hunyuan T1 20250711: 27.3 (#106)
| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | Hunyuan T1 20250711 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1472 | 1399 |
| SimpleBench | 55.1% | — |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 77.7% | — |
| CritPt | 4.6% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | 19% | — |
| Thematic Generalization | 69.8% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 149.86 | — |
Math GLM-5.1 leads
GLM-5.1: 49.0 (#48), Hunyuan T1 20250711: 36.0 (#132)
| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | Hunyuan T1 20250711 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1472 | 1414 |
| 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
GLM-5.1: 55.0 (#45), Hunyuan T1 20250711: 38.1 (#139)
| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | Hunyuan T1 20250711 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1477 | 1395 |
| GPQA Diamond | 89.9% | — |
| SimpleQA Verified | 34% | — |
Multilingual GLM-5.1 leads
GLM-5.1: 55.2 (#34), Hunyuan T1 20250711: 51.4 (#107)
| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | Hunyuan T1 20250711 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1448 | 1395 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1516 | 1424 |
| LMArena Korean | 1423 | 1403 |
| LMArena Russian | 1453 | 1384 |
| LMArena French | 1478 | — |
| LMArena German | 1466 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1436 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1467 | — |
Instruction Following GLM-5.1 leads
GLM-5.1: 76.5 (#41), Hunyuan T1 20250711: 72.8 (#130)
| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | Hunyuan T1 20250711 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1451 | 1375 |
Long Context GLM-5.1 leads
GLM-5.1: 44.9 (#51), Hunyuan T1 20250711: 42.2 (#123)
| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | Hunyuan T1 20250711 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1467 | 1384 |
Writing & Preference GLM-5.1 leads
GLM-5.1: 67.2 (#29), Hunyuan T1 20250711: 59.7 (#105)
| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | Hunyuan T1 20250711 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1462 | 1401 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1454 | 1391 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1473 | 1393 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1592 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is GLM-5.1 better than Hunyuan T1 20250711?
GLM-5.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 47.6 to 41.8 on the Noometry Index.
Is GLM-5.1 or Hunyuan T1 20250711 better for coding?
GLM-5.1 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 48.5 versus 40.2 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do GLM-5.1 and Hunyuan T1 20250711 share?
13 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-5.1 has 41 scored results on Noometry and Hunyuan T1 20250711 has 13.