Model comparison
GLM-5.1 vs Mistral Medium 3.1
GLM-5.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 47.6 to 31.5 on the Noometry Index. Mistral Medium 3.1 costs 2.7× less per token, which makes it the better buy when GLM-5.1's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 3 shared benchmarks.
Mistral AISummary
- They share 3 benchmarks with published results for both. GLM-5.1 scores higher in 2 categories and Mistral Medium 3.1 in 0 categories; 2 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in reasoning, where GLM-5.1 leads 38.2 to 10.1.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is NYT Connections (extended): 77.7% for GLM-5.1 and 6.5% for Mistral Medium 3.1.
- Mistral Medium 3.1 is cheaper at $0.40 / $2 per million input/output tokens, against $1.40 / $4.40 for GLM-5.1.
- GLM-5.1 accepts more context: 200K tokens versus 131K.
- GLM-5.1 has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| GLM-5.1 | Mistral Medium 3.1 | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Z.ai (Zhipu) | Mistral AI |
| Noometry Index | 47.6 | 31.5 |
| Released | 2026-04-07 | — |
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |
| Context window | 200K | 131K |
| Max output | 131K | 105K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $1.40 | $0.40 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $4.40 | $2 |
| Results tracked | 41 | 3 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Not comparable
GLM-5.1: 48.5 (#52), Mistral Medium 3.1: —
| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | Mistral Medium 3.1 |
|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench Verified | 74.2% | — |
| LMArena WebDev | 1509 | — |
| SciCode | 43.8% | — |
| WeirdML | 57.1% | — |
| LMArena Coding | 1486 | — |
| ALE-Bench | 887.1 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
GLM-5.1: 24.8 (#106), Mistral Medium 3.1: —
| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | Mistral Medium 3.1 |
|---|---|---|
| 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), Mistral Medium 3.1: 10.1 (#336)
| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | Mistral Medium 3.1 |
|---|---|---|
| NYT Connections (extended) | 77.7% | 6.5% |
| Thematic Generalization | 69.8% | 20.3% |
| SimpleBench | 55.1% | — |
| CritPt | 4.6% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | 19% | — |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1472 | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 149.86 | — |
Math Not comparable
GLM-5.1: 49.0 (#48), Mistral Medium 3.1: —
| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | Mistral Medium 3.1 |
|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 36.8% | — |
| MathArena Final-Answer Competitions | 67.1% | — |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 93.3% | — |
| ProofBench | 22.2% | — |
| LMArena Math | 1472 | — |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 33.4% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | 12.5% | — |
Knowledge Not comparable
GLM-5.1: 55.0 (#45), Mistral Medium 3.1: —
| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | Mistral Medium 3.1 |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 89.9% | — |
| SimpleQA Verified | 34% | — |
| LMArena Expert | 1477 | — |
Multilingual Not comparable
GLM-5.1: 55.2 (#34), Mistral Medium 3.1: —
| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | Mistral Medium 3.1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1448 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 1516 | — |
| LMArena French | 1478 | — |
| LMArena German | 1466 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1436 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1423 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1453 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1467 | — |
Instruction Following Not comparable
GLM-5.1: 76.5 (#41), Mistral Medium 3.1: —
| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | Mistral Medium 3.1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1451 | — |
Long Context Not comparable
GLM-5.1: 44.9 (#51), Mistral Medium 3.1: —
| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | Mistral Medium 3.1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1467 | — |
Writing & Preference GLM-5.1 leads
GLM-5.1: 67.2 (#29), Mistral Medium 3.1: 55.6 (#140)
| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | Mistral Medium 3.1 |
|---|---|---|
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1592 | 1476 |
| LMArena Text | 1462 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1454 | — |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1473 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is GLM-5.1 better than Mistral Medium 3.1?
GLM-5.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 47.6 to 31.5 on the Noometry Index. Mistral Medium 3.1 costs 2.7× 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-5.1 or Mistral Medium 3.1?
Mistral Medium 3.1 is cheaper. It lists at $0.40 per million input tokens and $2 per million output tokens; GLM-5.1 lists at $1.40 and $4.40.
Which has the bigger context window?
GLM-5.1 does, with 200K tokens against 131K.
How many benchmarks do GLM-5.1 and Mistral Medium 3.1 share?
3 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-5.1 has 41 scored results on Noometry and Mistral Medium 3.1 has 3.