Model comparison

GLM-5.1 vs Step 2 16k Exp 202412

GLM-5.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 47.6 to 38.6 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 12 shared benchmarks.

GLM-5.1 Z.ai (Zhipu)

47.6

Rank #51 Confirmed

Step 2 16k Exp 202412 StepFun

38.6

Rank #173 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 12 benchmarks with published results for both. GLM-5.1 scores higher in 8 categories and Step 2 16k Exp 202412 in 0 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in knowledge, where GLM-5.1 leads 55.0 to 34.6.
  • GLM-5.1 has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

GLM-5.1 and Step 2 16k Exp 202412 specifications
GLM-5.1Step 2 16k Exp 202412
ProviderZ.ai (Zhipu)StepFun
Noometry Index47.638.6
Released2026-04-07—
WeightsOpenProprietary
Context window200K—
Max output131K—
Input $ / M tokens$1.40—
Output $ / M tokens$4.40—
Results tracked4112

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), Step 2 16k Exp 202412: 37.9 (#170)

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5.1Step 2 16k Exp 202412
LMArena Coding14861316
SWE-bench Verified74.2%—
LMArena WebDev1509—
SciCode43.8%—
WeirdML57.1%—
ALE-Bench887.1—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

GLM-5.1: 24.8 (#106), Step 2 16k Exp 202412: —

Agentic & Tool Use benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5.1Step 2 16k Exp 202412
APEX-Agents40.9%—
ExploitBench18.1%—
GBAEval0%—
Vending-Bench 25,634—

Reasoning GLM-5.1 leads

GLM-5.1: 38.2 (#57), Step 2 16k Exp 202412: 24.8 (#140)

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5.1Step 2 16k Exp 202412
LMArena Hard Prompts14721299
SimpleBench55.1%—
NYT Connections (extended)77.7%—
CritPt4.6%—
Chess Puzzles19%—
Thematic Generalization69.8%—
Epoch Capabilities Index149.86—

Math GLM-5.1 leads

GLM-5.1: 49.0 (#48), Step 2 16k Exp 202412: 33.6 (#171)

Math benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5.1Step 2 16k Exp 202412
LMArena Math14721305
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)36.8%—
MathArena Final-Answer Competitions67.1%—
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202593.3%—
ProofBench22.2%—
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)33.4%—
FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1)12.5%—

Knowledge GLM-5.1 leads

GLM-5.1: 55.0 (#45), Step 2 16k Exp 202412: 34.6 (#187)

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5.1Step 2 16k Exp 202412
LMArena Expert14771279
GPQA Diamond89.9%—
SimpleQA Verified34%—

Multilingual GLM-5.1 leads

GLM-5.1: 55.2 (#34), Step 2 16k Exp 202412: 43.9 (#176)

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5.1Step 2 16k Exp 202412
LMArena Non-English14481290
LMArena Chinese15161331
LMArena Russian14531324
LMArena French1478—
LMArena German1466—
LMArena Japanese1436—
LMArena Korean1423—
LMArena Spanish1467—

Instruction Following GLM-5.1 leads

GLM-5.1: 76.5 (#41), Step 2 16k Exp 202412: 68.1 (#187)

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5.1Step 2 16k Exp 202412
LMArena Instruction Following14511287

Long Context GLM-5.1 leads

GLM-5.1: 44.9 (#51), Step 2 16k Exp 202412: 39.7 (#165)

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5.1Step 2 16k Exp 202412
LMArena Longer Query14671307

Writing & Preference GLM-5.1 leads

GLM-5.1: 67.2 (#29), Step 2 16k Exp 202412: 52.5 (#168)

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5.1Step 2 16k Exp 202412
LMArena Text14621321
LMArena Creative Writing14541328
LMArena Multi-Turn14731292
EQ-Bench Creative Writing1592—

Frequently asked questions

Is GLM-5.1 better than Step 2 16k Exp 202412?

GLM-5.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 47.6 to 38.6 on the Noometry Index.

Is GLM-5.1 or Step 2 16k Exp 202412 better for coding?

GLM-5.1 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 48.5 versus 37.9 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do GLM-5.1 and Step 2 16k Exp 202412 share?

12 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-5.1 has 41 scored results on Noometry and Step 2 16k Exp 202412 has 12.

Related comparisons

Go deeper