# GLM-5.1 vs GPT-4.1

> GLM-5.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 47.8 to 35.9 on the Noometry Index.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/glm-5-1-vs-gpt-4-1
- Last updated: 2026-10-12
- Shared benchmarks: 30

## Summary

- They share 30 benchmarks with published results for both. GLM-5.1 scores higher in 8 categories and GPT-4.1 in 1 category; 9 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where GLM-5.1 leads 49.7 to 22.3.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 93.3% for GLM-5.1 and 38.3% for GPT-4.1.
- GLM-5.1 is cheaper at $1.40 / $4.40 per million input/output tokens, against $2 / $8 for GPT-4.1.
- GPT-4.1 accepts more context: 1.05M tokens versus 200K.
- GLM-5.1 has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

## Snapshot

| | GLM-5.1 | GPT-4.1 |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Z.ai (Zhipu) | OpenAI |
| Noometry Index | 47.8 | 35.9 |
| Rank | 59 | 219 |
| Context | 200K | 1.05M |
| Input $/M | $1.40 | $2 |
| Output $/M | $4.40 | $8 |
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |

## Coding

- GLM-5.1: 48.7 (#55)
- GPT-4.1: 34.4 (#238)

| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | GPT-4.1 |
|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench Verified | 74.2% | 48.5% |
| WeirdML | 57.1% | 39% |
| LMArena Coding | 1485 | 1391 |
| ALE-Bench | 887.1 | 558.1 |
| SWE-bench Verified (bash only) | — | 39.6% |
| Aider Polyglot | — | 52.4% |
| LMArena WebDev | 1508 | — |
| SciCode | 43.8% | — |
| CadEval | — | 42% |

## Agentic & Tool Use

- GLM-5.1: 24.9 (#113)
- GPT-4.1: 34.7 (#43)

| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | GPT-4.1 |
|---|---|---|
| APEX-Agents | 40.9% | — |
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | — | 54% |
| ExploitBench | 18.1% | — |
| GBAEval | 0% | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | 5,634 | — |

## Reasoning

- GLM-5.1: 39.1 (#60)
- GPT-4.1: 11.7 (#339)

| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | GPT-4.1 |
|---|---|---|
| SimpleBench | 55.1% | 27% |
| Chess Puzzles | 19% | 6% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1472 | 1384 |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 149.84 | 136.78 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | — | 0.4% |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | — | 52.3% |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 77.7% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | — | 5.5% |
| CritPt | 4.6% | — |
| EnigmaEval | — | 2.2% |
| Thematic Generalization | 69.8% | — |
| DTBench | — | 68.3% |
| LMCA | — | 25.6% |
| ForecastBench | — | 61.5 |

## Math

- GLM-5.1: 49.7 (#60)
- GPT-4.1: 22.3 (#280)

| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | GPT-4.1 |
|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 36.8% | 6% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 93.3% | 38.3% |
| LMArena Math | 1473 | 1370 |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 33.4% | 5.5% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | 12.5% | 0% |
| MathArena Final-Answer Competitions | 67.1% | — |
| ProofBench | 22.2% | — |
| Omni-MATH | — | 47.1% |
| MATH Level 5 | — | 83% |

## Knowledge

- GLM-5.1: 54.9 (#50)
- GPT-4.1: 37.1 (#160)

| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | GPT-4.1 |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 89.9% | 66.9% |
| SimpleQA Verified | 34% | 31.1% |
| LMArena Expert | 1476 | 1364 |
| Humanity's Last Exam | — | 5.4% |
| MMLU-Pro | — | 81.1% |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | — | 5.6% |
| GPQA (HELM) | — | 65.9% |

## Multimodal

- GLM-5.1: —
- GPT-4.1: 38.2 (#67)

| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | GPT-4.1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | — | 1211 |
| GeoBench | — | 72% |

## Multilingual

- GLM-5.1: 55.0 (#36)
- GPT-4.1: 49.4 (#133)

| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | GPT-4.1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1447 | 1370 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1515 | 1382 |
| LMArena French | 1474 | 1382 |
| LMArena German | 1465 | 1381 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1434 | 1319 |
| LMArena Korean | 1418 | 1339 |
| LMArena Russian | 1454 | 1377 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1469 | 1376 |

## Instruction Following

- GLM-5.1: 76.3 (#42)
- GPT-4.1: 71.3 (#153)

| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | GPT-4.1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1451 | 1367 |
| IFEval | — | 83.8% |

## Long Context

- GLM-5.1: 44.9 (#53)
- GPT-4.1: 40.0 (#163)

| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | GPT-4.1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1466 | 1385 |
| Fiction.LiveBench | — | 63.9% |

## Writing & Preference

- GLM-5.1: 66.9 (#31)
- GPT-4.1: 57.6 (#125)

| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | GPT-4.1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1461 | 1383 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1453 | 1363 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1592 | 1420 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1472 | 1398 |
| WildBench | — | 85.4% |

## FAQ

### Is GLM-5.1 better than GPT-4.1?

GLM-5.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 47.8 to 35.9 on the Noometry Index.

### Which is cheaper, GLM-5.1 or GPT-4.1?

GLM-5.1 is cheaper. It lists at $1.40 per million input tokens and $4.40 per million output tokens; GPT-4.1 lists at $2 and $8.

### Is GLM-5.1 or GPT-4.1 better for coding?

GLM-5.1 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 48.7 versus 34.4 in the Noometry coding category.

### Which has the bigger context window?

GPT-4.1 does, with 1.05M tokens against 200K.

### How many benchmarks do GLM-5.1 and GPT-4.1 share?

30 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-5.1 has 41 scored results on Noometry and GPT-4.1 has 52.