Model comparison

GLM-5.1 vs Pixtral Large

GLM-5.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 47.8 to 32.2 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 1 shared benchmarks.

GLM-5.1 Z.ai (Zhipu)

47.8

Rank #59 Confirmed

Pixtral Large Mistral AI

32.2

Rank #259 Reported

Summary

  • They share 1 benchmark with published results for both. GLM-5.1 scores higher in 2 categories and Pixtral Large in 0 categories; 2 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in writing & preference, where GLM-5.1 leads 66.9 to 32.9.
  • GLM-5.1 is cheaper at $1.40 / $4.40 per million input/output tokens, against $2 / $6 for Pixtral Large.
  • GLM-5.1 accepts more context: 200K tokens versus 128K.

Side by side

GLM-5.1 and Pixtral Large specifications
GLM-5.1Pixtral Large
ProviderZ.ai (Zhipu)Mistral AI
Noometry Index47.832.2
Released2026-04-072024-11-01
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window200K128K
Max output131K128K
Input $ / M tokens$1.40$2
Output $ / M tokens$4.40$6
Results tracked413

Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry

Category by category

Coding Not comparable

GLM-5.1: 48.7 (#55), Pixtral Large: —

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5.1Pixtral Large
SWE-bench Verified74.2%—
LMArena WebDev1508—
SciCode43.8%—
WeirdML57.1%—
LMArena Coding1485—
ALE-Bench887.1—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

GLM-5.1: 24.9 (#113), Pixtral Large: —

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

Reasoning GLM-5.1 leads

GLM-5.1: 39.1 (#60), Pixtral Large: 21.7 (#218)

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5.1Pixtral Large
SimpleBench55.1%—
NYT Connections (extended)77.7%—
CritPt4.6%—
Chess Puzzles19%—
EnigmaEval—0.8%
Thematic Generalization69.8%—
LMArena Hard Prompts1472—
Epoch Capabilities Index149.84—

Math Not comparable

GLM-5.1: 49.7 (#60), Pixtral Large: —

Knowledge Not comparable

GLM-5.1: 54.9 (#50), Pixtral Large: —

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5.1Pixtral Large
GPQA Diamond89.9%—
SimpleQA Verified34%—
LMArena Expert1476—

Multimodal Not comparable

GLM-5.1: —, Pixtral Large: 30.6 (#111)

Multimodal benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5.1Pixtral Large
LMArena Vision—1089

Multilingual Not comparable

GLM-5.1: 55.0 (#36), Pixtral Large: —

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5.1Pixtral Large
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), Pixtral Large: —

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5.1Pixtral Large
LMArena Instruction Following1451—

Long Context Not comparable

GLM-5.1: 44.9 (#53), Pixtral Large: —

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5.1Pixtral Large
LMArena Longer Query1466—

Writing & Preference GLM-5.1 leads

GLM-5.1: 66.9 (#31), Pixtral Large: 32.9 (#278)

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5.1Pixtral Large
EQ-Bench Creative Writing1592988
LMArena Text1461—
LMArena Creative Writing1453—
LMArena Multi-Turn1472—

Frequently asked questions

Is GLM-5.1 better than Pixtral Large?

GLM-5.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 47.8 to 32.2 on the Noometry Index.

Which is cheaper, GLM-5.1 or Pixtral Large?

GLM-5.1 is cheaper. It lists at $1.40 per million input tokens and $4.40 per million output tokens; Pixtral Large lists at $2 and $6.

Which has the bigger context window?

GLM-5.1 does, with 200K tokens against 128K.

How many benchmarks do GLM-5.1 and Pixtral Large share?

1 benchmark has published results for both models. GLM-5.1 has 41 scored results on Noometry and Pixtral Large has 3.

Related comparisons

Go deeper