Model comparison
GLM-5 vs Grok 4.1 Fast
GLM-5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 46.1 to 41.4 on the Noometry Index. Grok 4.1 Fast costs 5.6× less per token, which makes it the better buy when GLM-5's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 27 shared benchmarks.
Summary
- They share 27 benchmarks with published results for both. GLM-5 scores higher in 7 categories and Grok 4.1 Fast in 2 categories; 9 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in knowledge, where GLM-5 leads 52.3 to 33.1.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is NYT Connections (extended): 74.8% for GLM-5 and 87.4% for Grok 4.1 Fast.
- Grok 4.1 Fast is cheaper at $0.20 / $0.50 per million input/output tokens, against $1 / $3.20 for GLM-5.
- GLM-5 accepts more context: 205K tokens versus 128K.
- GLM-5 has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| GLM-5 | Grok 4.1 Fast | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Z.ai (Zhipu) | xAI |
| Noometry Index | 46.1 | 41.4 |
| Released | 2026-02-11 | 2025-06-27 |
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |
| Context window | 205K | 128K |
| Max output | 131K | 30K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $1 | $0.20 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $3.20 | $0.50 |
| Results tracked | 45 | 32 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding GLM-5 leads
GLM-5: 49.0 (#52), Grok 4.1 Fast: 34.1 (#245)
| Benchmark | GLM-5 | Grok 4.1 Fast |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena WebDev | 1434 | 1242 |
| LMArena Coding | 1461 | 1411 |
| ALE-Bench | 765.62 | 394.93 |
| SWE-bench Verified | 72.1% | — |
| SWE-bench Verified (bash only) | 72.8% | — |
| SWE-bench Multilingual | 69.7% | — |
| WeirdML | 48.2% | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Grok 4.1 Fast leads
GLM-5: 31.1 (#71), Grok 4.1 Fast: 36.3 (#39)
| Benchmark | GLM-5 | Grok 4.1 Fast |
|---|---|---|
| τ²-bench Banking | 9.8% | 13.1% |
| Vending-Bench 2 | 4,432 | 1,107 |
| Terminal-Bench | 52.4% | — |
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | — | 69.6% |
| τ²-bench Airline | 82.5% | — |
| τ²-bench Retail | 73.7% | — |
| τ²-bench Telecom | 86.8% | — |
| LMArena Search | — | 1171 |
Reasoning Grok 4.1 Fast leads
GLM-5: 27.6 (#116), Grok 4.1 Fast: 43.4 (#49)
| Benchmark | GLM-5 | Grok 4.1 Fast |
|---|---|---|
| SimpleBench | 53.2% | 56% |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 74.8% | 87.4% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1452 | 1407 |
| ForecastBench | 61 | 61 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 4.9% | — |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 75% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 44.7% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | 10% | — |
| DTBench | — | 87.7% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 145.83 | — |
Math GLM-5 leads
GLM-5: 46.4 (#71), Grok 4.1 Fast: 31.9 (#221)
| Benchmark | GLM-5 | Grok 4.1 Fast |
|---|---|---|
| MathArena Final-Answer Competitions | 65.7% | 60.9% |
| LMArena Math | 1440 | 1408 |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 80% | — |
| ProofBench | — | 4% |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 16.4% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | 2.1% | — |
Knowledge GLM-5 leads
GLM-5: 52.3 (#64), Grok 4.1 Fast: 33.1 (#207)
| Benchmark | GLM-5 | Grok 4.1 Fast |
|---|---|---|
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 10.1% | 17.8% |
| LMArena Expert | 1454 | 1399 |
| GPQA Diamond | 87.8% | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
GLM-5: —, Grok 4.1 Fast: 37.0 (#76)
| Benchmark | GLM-5 | Grok 4.1 Fast |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | — | 1201 |
Multilingual GLM-5 leads
GLM-5: 53.7 (#58), Grok 4.1 Fast: 51.0 (#114)
| Benchmark | GLM-5 | Grok 4.1 Fast |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1430 | 1391 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1511 | 1441 |
| LMArena French | 1455 | 1415 |
| LMArena German | 1445 | 1404 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1416 | 1349 |
| LMArena Korean | 1423 | 1361 |
| LMArena Russian | 1436 | 1387 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1454 | 1413 |
Instruction Following GLM-5 leads
GLM-5: 75.2 (#67), Grok 4.1 Fast: 72.7 (#133)
| Benchmark | GLM-5 | Grok 4.1 Fast |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1428 | 1376 |
Long Context GLM-5 leads
GLM-5: 44.7 (#60), Grok 4.1 Fast: 42.4 (#126)
| Benchmark | GLM-5 | Grok 4.1 Fast |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1446 | 1390 |
| CL-bench | 18.7% | — |
Writing & Preference GLM-5 leads
GLM-5: 66.0 (#38), Grok 4.1 Fast: 57.2 (#131)
| Benchmark | GLM-5 | Grok 4.1 Fast |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1446 | 1408 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1439 | 1394 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1601 | 1327 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1456 | 1389 |
Frequently asked questions
Is GLM-5 better than Grok 4.1 Fast?
GLM-5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 46.1 to 41.4 on the Noometry Index. Grok 4.1 Fast costs 5.6× less per token, which makes it the better buy when GLM-5's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, GLM-5 or Grok 4.1 Fast?
Grok 4.1 Fast is cheaper. It lists at $0.20 per million input tokens and $0.50 per million output tokens; GLM-5 lists at $1 and $3.20.
Is GLM-5 or Grok 4.1 Fast better for coding?
GLM-5 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 49.0 versus 34.1 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
GLM-5 does, with 205K tokens against 128K.
How many benchmarks do GLM-5 and Grok 4.1 Fast share?
27 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-5 has 45 scored results on Noometry and Grok 4.1 Fast has 32.