# GLM-4.6V vs GPT-5.1-Codex

> GLM-4.6V is the stronger model overall, scoring 40.9 to 38.2 on the Noometry Index.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/glm-4-6v-vs-gpt-5-1-codex
- Last updated: 2026-10-10
- Shared benchmarks: 0

## Summary

- GLM-4.6V is cheaper at $0.30 / $0.90 per million input/output tokens, against $1.25 / $10 for GPT-5.1-Codex.
- GPT-5.1-Codex accepts more context: 400K tokens versus 128K.
- GLM-4.6V has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

## Snapshot

| | GLM-4.6V | GPT-5.1-Codex |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Z.ai (Zhipu) | OpenAI |
| Noometry Index | 40.9 | 38.2 |
| Rank | 133 | 178 |
| Context | 128K | 400K |
| Input $/M | $0.30 | $1.25 |
| Output $/M | $0.90 | $10 |
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |

## Coding

- GLM-4.6V: 40.2 (#128)
- GPT-5.1-Codex: 41.7 (#107)

| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | GPT-5.1-Codex |
|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench Verified (bash only) | — | 66% |
| LMArena WebDev | — | 1337 |
| LMArena Coding | 1390 | — |
| ALE-Bench | — | 1,245 |

## Agentic & Tool Use

- GLM-4.6V: —
- GPT-5.1-Codex: 37.8 (#32)

| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | GPT-5.1-Codex |
|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench | — | 60.4% |
| METR Time Horizons | — | 70.8% |

## Reasoning

- GLM-4.6V: 26.5 (#117)
- GPT-5.1-Codex: —

| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | GPT-5.1-Codex |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1368 | — |

## Math

- GLM-4.6V: —
- GPT-5.1-Codex: 29.3 (#218)

| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | GPT-5.1-Codex |
|---|---|---|
| ProofBench | — | 9% |

## Knowledge

- GLM-4.6V: 37.4 (#148)
- GPT-5.1-Codex: —

| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | GPT-5.1-Codex |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1372 | — |

## Multimodal

- GLM-4.6V: 34.2 (#83)
- GPT-5.1-Codex: —

| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | GPT-5.1-Codex |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1164 | — |

## Multilingual

- GLM-4.6V: 48.8 (#135)
- GPT-5.1-Codex: —

| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | GPT-5.1-Codex |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1359 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 1426 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1341 | — |

## Instruction Following

- GLM-4.6V: 71.6 (#145)
- GPT-5.1-Codex: —

| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | GPT-5.1-Codex |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1351 | — |

## Long Context

- GLM-4.6V: 41.3 (#138)
- GPT-5.1-Codex: —

| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | GPT-5.1-Codex |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1358 | — |

## Writing & Preference

- GLM-4.6V: 56.8 (#132)
- GPT-5.1-Codex: —

| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | GPT-5.1-Codex |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1377 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1347 | — |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1359 | — |

## FAQ

### Is GLM-4.6V better than GPT-5.1-Codex?

GLM-4.6V is the stronger model overall, scoring 40.9 to 38.2 on the Noometry Index.

### Which is cheaper, GLM-4.6V or GPT-5.1-Codex?

GLM-4.6V is cheaper. It lists at $0.30 per million input tokens and $0.90 per million output tokens; GPT-5.1-Codex lists at $1.25 and $10.

### Is GLM-4.6V or GPT-5.1-Codex better for coding?

GPT-5.1-Codex scores higher on coding benchmarks: 41.7 versus 40.2 in the Noometry coding category.

### Which has the bigger context window?

GPT-5.1-Codex does, with 400K tokens against 128K.

### How many benchmarks do GLM-4.6V and GPT-5.1-Codex share?

0 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-4.6V has 12 scored results on Noometry and GPT-5.1-Codex has 6.