# GLM-5.1 vs GPT-5.4 nano

> GLM-5.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 47.8 to 41.9 on the Noometry Index. GPT-5.4 nano costs 4.6× less per token, which makes it the better buy when GLM-5.1's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

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

## Summary

- They share 30 benchmarks with published results for both. GLM-5.1 scores higher in 8 categories and GPT-5.4 nano in 0 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in reasoning, where GLM-5.1 leads 39.1 to 23.7.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is SimpleQA Verified: 34% for GLM-5.1 and 11.7% for GPT-5.4 nano.
- GPT-5.4 nano is cheaper at $0.20 / $1.25 per million input/output tokens, against $1.40 / $4.40 for GLM-5.1.
- GPT-5.4 nano accepts more context: 400K tokens versus 200K.
- GLM-5.1 has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

## Snapshot

| | GLM-5.1 | GPT-5.4 nano |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Z.ai (Zhipu) | OpenAI |
| Noometry Index | 47.8 | 41.9 |
| Rank | 59 | 125 |
| Context | 200K | 400K |
| Input $/M | $1.40 | $0.20 |
| Output $/M | $4.40 | $1.25 |
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |

## Coding

- GLM-5.1: 48.7 (#55)
- GPT-5.4 nano: 43.6 (#84)

| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | GPT-5.4 nano |
|---|---|---|
| SciCode | 43.8% | 46.9% |
| WeirdML | 57.1% | 49.2% |
| LMArena Coding | 1485 | 1405 |
| ALE-Bench | 887.1 | 1,005 |
| SWE-bench Verified | 74.2% | — |
| LMArena WebDev | 1508 | — |

## Agentic & Tool Use

- GLM-5.1: 24.9 (#113)
- GPT-5.4 nano: —

| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | GPT-5.4 nano |
|---|---|---|
| APEX-Agents | 40.9% | — |
| ExploitBench | 18.1% | — |
| GBAEval | 0% | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | 5,634 | — |

## Reasoning

- GLM-5.1: 39.1 (#60)
- GPT-5.4 nano: 23.7 (#173)

| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | GPT-5.4 nano |
|---|---|---|
| CritPt | 4.6% | 9.3% |
| Chess Puzzles | 19% | 30% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1472 | 1381 |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 149.84 | 145.81 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | — | 5.7% |
| SimpleBench | 55.1% | — |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | — | 39.7% |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 77.7% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | — | 51.5% |
| Thematic Generalization | 69.8% | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | — | 9% |
| DTBench | — | 80.3% |
| LMCA | — | 36.9% |
| ForecastBench | — | 57.3 |

## Math

- GLM-5.1: 49.7 (#60)
- GPT-5.4 nano: 40.9 (#88)

| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | GPT-5.4 nano |
|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 36.8% | 44.9% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 93.3% | 87.8% |
| ProofBench | 22.2% | 5% |
| LMArena Math | 1473 | 1406 |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 33.4% | 25.9% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | 12.5% | 6.3% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | — | 12.2% |
| MathArena Final-Answer Competitions | 67.1% | — |

## Knowledge

- GLM-5.1: 54.9 (#50)
- GPT-5.4 nano: 41.9 (#103)

| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | GPT-5.4 nano |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 89.9% | 78.5% |
| SimpleQA Verified | 34% | 11.7% |
| LMArena Expert | 1476 | 1396 |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | — | 3.1% |

## Multimodal

- GLM-5.1: —
- GPT-5.4 nano: 36.7 (#78)

| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | GPT-5.4 nano |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | — | 1196 |

## Multilingual

- GLM-5.1: 55.0 (#36)
- GPT-5.4 nano: 48.6 (#140)

| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | GPT-5.4 nano |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1447 | 1359 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1515 | 1392 |
| LMArena French | 1474 | 1396 |
| LMArena German | 1465 | 1367 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1434 | 1343 |
| LMArena Korean | 1418 | 1320 |
| LMArena Russian | 1454 | 1363 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1469 | 1371 |

## Instruction Following

- GLM-5.1: 76.3 (#42)
- GPT-5.4 nano: 71.9 (#144)

| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | GPT-5.4 nano |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1451 | 1362 |

## Long Context

- GLM-5.1: 44.9 (#53)
- GPT-5.4 nano: 41.6 (#137)

| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | GPT-5.4 nano |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1466 | 1366 |

## Writing & Preference

- GLM-5.1: 66.9 (#31)
- GPT-5.4 nano: 55.7 (#142)

| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | GPT-5.4 nano |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1461 | 1372 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1453 | 1314 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1472 | 1382 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1592 | — |

## FAQ

### Is GLM-5.1 better than GPT-5.4 nano?

GLM-5.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 47.8 to 41.9 on the Noometry Index. GPT-5.4 nano costs 4.6× less per token, which makes it the better buy when GLM-5.1's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

### Which is cheaper, GLM-5.1 or GPT-5.4 nano?

GPT-5.4 nano is cheaper. It lists at $0.20 per million input tokens and $1.25 per million output tokens; GLM-5.1 lists at $1.40 and $4.40.

### Is GLM-5.1 or GPT-5.4 nano better for coding?

GLM-5.1 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 48.7 versus 43.6 in the Noometry coding category.

### Which has the bigger context window?

GPT-5.4 nano does, with 400K tokens against 200K.

### How many benchmarks do GLM-5.1 and GPT-5.4 nano share?

30 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-5.1 has 41 scored results on Noometry and GPT-5.4 nano has 40.