Model comparison

GLM-5.1 vs Phi-4 Mini

GLM-5.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 47.8 to 30.9 on the Noometry Index. Phi-4 Mini costs 16× less per token, which makes it the better buy when GLM-5.1's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Last verified . 2 shared benchmarks.

GLM-5.1 Z.ai (Zhipu)

47.8

Rank #59 Confirmed

Phi-4 Mini Microsoft

30.9

Rank #283 Reported

Summary

  • They share 2 benchmarks with published results for both. GLM-5.1 scores higher in 3 categories and Phi-4 Mini in 0 categories; 3 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in knowledge, where GLM-5.1 leads 54.9 to 25.3.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is SciCode: 43.8% for GLM-5.1 and 10.8% for Phi-4 Mini.
  • Phi-4 Mini is cheaper at $0.075 / $0.30 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-5.1 and Phi-4 Mini specifications
GLM-5.1Phi-4 Mini
ProviderZ.ai (Zhipu)Microsoft
Noometry Index47.830.9
Released2026-04-072024-12-11
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window200K128K
Max output131K4K
Input $ / M tokens$1.40$0.075
Output $ / M tokens$4.40$0.30
Results tracked413

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), Phi-4 Mini: 28.1 (#317)

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5.1Phi-4 Mini
SciCode43.8%10.8%
SWE-bench Verified74.2%—
LMArena WebDev1508—
WeirdML57.1%—
LMArena Coding1485—
ALE-Bench887.1—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

GLM-5.1: 24.9 (#113), Phi-4 Mini: —

Agentic & Tool Use benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5.1Phi-4 Mini
APEX-Agents40.9%—
ExploitBench18.1%—
GBAEval0%—
Vending-Bench 25,634—

Reasoning GLM-5.1 leads

GLM-5.1: 39.1 (#60), Phi-4 Mini: 22.4 (#195)

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5.1Phi-4 Mini
CritPt4.6%0%
SimpleBench55.1%—
NYT Connections (extended)77.7%—
Chess Puzzles19%—
Thematic Generalization69.8%—
LMArena Hard Prompts1472—
Epoch Capabilities Index149.84—

Math Not comparable

GLM-5.1: 49.7 (#60), Phi-4 Mini: —

Knowledge GLM-5.1 leads

GLM-5.1: 54.9 (#50), Phi-4 Mini: 25.3 (#262)

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5.1Phi-4 Mini
GPQA Diamond89.9%—
SimpleQA Verified34%—
Vectara Hallucination Rate—23.5%
LMArena Expert1476—

Multilingual Not comparable

GLM-5.1: 55.0 (#36), Phi-4 Mini: —

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5.1Phi-4 Mini
LMArena Non-English1447—
LMArena Chinese1515—
LMArena French1474—
LMArena German1465—
LMArena Japanese1434—
LMArena Korean1418—
LMArena Russian1454—
LMArena Spanish1469—

Instruction Following Not comparable

GLM-5.1: 76.3 (#42), Phi-4 Mini: —

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5.1Phi-4 Mini
LMArena Instruction Following1451—

Long Context Not comparable

GLM-5.1: 44.9 (#53), Phi-4 Mini: —

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5.1Phi-4 Mini
LMArena Longer Query1466—

Writing & Preference Not comparable

GLM-5.1: 66.9 (#31), Phi-4 Mini: —

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5.1Phi-4 Mini
LMArena Text1461—
LMArena Creative Writing1453—
EQ-Bench Creative Writing1592—
LMArena Multi-Turn1472—

Frequently asked questions

Is GLM-5.1 better than Phi-4 Mini?

GLM-5.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 47.8 to 30.9 on the Noometry Index. Phi-4 Mini costs 16× 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 Phi-4 Mini?

Phi-4 Mini is cheaper. It lists at $0.075 per million input tokens and $0.30 per million output tokens; GLM-5.1 lists at $1.40 and $4.40.

Is GLM-5.1 or Phi-4 Mini better for coding?

GLM-5.1 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 48.7 versus 28.1 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-5.1 and Phi-4 Mini share?

2 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-5.1 has 41 scored results on Noometry and Phi-4 Mini has 3.

Related comparisons

Go deeper