# GLM-5 vs GPT-4.1 nano

> GLM-5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 45.9 to 27.7 on the Noometry Index. GPT-4.1 nano costs 8.9× less per token, which makes it the better buy when GLM-5's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/glm-5-vs-gpt-4-1-nano
- Last updated: 2026-10-10
- Shared benchmarks: 23

## Summary

- They share 23 benchmarks with published results for both. GLM-5 scores higher in 9 categories and GPT-4.1 nano in 0 categories; 9 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in knowledge, where GLM-5 leads 52.2 to 21.8.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 80% for GLM-5 and 28.9% for GPT-4.1 nano.
- GPT-4.1 nano is cheaper at $0.10 / $0.40 per million input/output tokens, against $1 / $3.20 for GLM-5.
- GPT-4.1 nano accepts more context: 1.05M tokens versus 205K.
- GLM-5 has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

## Snapshot

| | GLM-5 | GPT-4.1 nano |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Z.ai (Zhipu) | OpenAI |
| Noometry Index | 45.9 | 27.7 |
| Rank | 59 | 322 |
| Context | 205K | 1.05M |
| Input $/M | $1 | $0.10 |
| Output $/M | $3.20 | $0.40 |
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |

## Coding

- GLM-5: 49.0 (#47)
- GPT-4.1 nano: 23.8 (#325)

| Benchmark | GLM-5 | GPT-4.1 nano |
|---|---|---|
| WeirdML | 48.2% | 19% |
| LMArena Coding | 1461 | 1306 |
| SWE-bench Verified | 72.1% | — |
| SWE-bench Verified (bash only) | 72.8% | — |
| Aider Polyglot | — | 8.9% |
| LMArena WebDev | 1434 | — |
| SWE-bench Multilingual | 69.7% | — |
| SciCode | — | 25.9% |
| ALE-Bench | 765.62 | — |

## Agentic & Tool Use

- GLM-5: 30.9 (#65)
- GPT-4.1 nano: 26.3 (#98)

| Benchmark | GLM-5 | GPT-4.1 nano |
|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench | 52.4% | — |
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | — | 33% |
| τ²-bench Airline | 82.5% | — |
| τ²-bench Banking | 9.8% | — |
| τ²-bench Retail | 73.7% | — |
| τ²-bench Telecom | 86.8% | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | 4,432 | — |

## Reasoning

- GLM-5: 27.6 (#100)
- GPT-4.1 nano: 8.6 (#344)

| Benchmark | GLM-5 | GPT-4.1 nano |
|---|---|---|
| ARC-AGI-2 | 4.9% | 0% |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 75% | 33.3% |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 44.7% | 0% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1451 | 1286 |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 145.84 | 129.62 |
| SimpleBench | 53.2% | — |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 74.8% | — |
| CritPt | — | 0% |
| Chess Puzzles | 10% | — |
| DTBench | — | 52.5% |
| LMCA | — | 5.5% |
| ForecastBench | 61 | — |

## Math

- GLM-5: 44.8 (#66)
- GPT-4.1 nano: 25.5 (#246)

| Benchmark | GLM-5 | GPT-4.1 nano |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 80% | 28.9% |
| LMArena Math | 1440 | 1274 |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 16.4% | 1% |
| MathArena Final-Answer Competitions | 65.7% | — |
| Omni-MATH | — | 36.7% |
| MATH Level 5 | — | 70% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | 2.1% | — |

## Knowledge

- GLM-5: 52.2 (#59)
- GPT-4.1 nano: 21.8 (#268)

| Benchmark | GLM-5 | GPT-4.1 nano |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 87.8% | 48.9% |
| LMArena Expert | 1454 | 1272 |
| SimpleQA Verified | — | 6% |
| MMLU-Pro | — | 55% |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 10.1% | — |
| GPQA (HELM) | — | 50.7% |

## Multimodal

- GLM-5: —
- GPT-4.1 nano: 28.6 (#108)

| Benchmark | GLM-5 | GPT-4.1 nano |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | — | 1063 |

## Multilingual

- GLM-5: 53.9 (#57)
- GPT-4.1 nano: 41.8 (#200)

| Benchmark | GLM-5 | GPT-4.1 nano |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1430 | 1260 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1511 | 1270 |
| LMArena German | 1445 | 1288 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1416 | 1199 |
| LMArena Russian | 1436 | 1261 |
| LMArena French | 1455 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1421 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1452 | — |

## Instruction Following

- GLM-5: 75.4 (#64)
- GPT-4.1 nano: 68.0 (#188)

| Benchmark | GLM-5 | GPT-4.1 nano |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1427 | 1267 |
| IFEval | — | 84.3% |

## Long Context

- GLM-5: 44.6 (#58)
- GPT-4.1 nano: 23.7 (#291)

| Benchmark | GLM-5 | GPT-4.1 nano |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1446 | 1283 |
| Fiction.LiveBench | — | 25% |
| CL-bench | 18.7% | — |

## Writing & Preference

- GLM-5: 66.2 (#38)
- GPT-4.1 nano: 40.7 (#238)

| Benchmark | GLM-5 | GPT-4.1 nano |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1446 | 1285 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1438 | 1260 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1601 | 946 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1456 | 1277 |
| WildBench | — | 81.2% |

## FAQ

### Is GLM-5 better than GPT-4.1 nano?

GLM-5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 45.9 to 27.7 on the Noometry Index. GPT-4.1 nano costs 8.9× 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 GPT-4.1 nano?

GPT-4.1 nano is cheaper. It lists at $0.10 per million input tokens and $0.40 per million output tokens; GLM-5 lists at $1 and $3.20.

### Is GLM-5 or GPT-4.1 nano better for coding?

GLM-5 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 49.0 versus 23.8 in the Noometry coding category.

### Which has the bigger context window?

GPT-4.1 nano does, with 1.05M tokens against 205K.

### How many benchmarks do GLM-5 and GPT-4.1 nano share?

23 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-5 has 45 scored results on Noometry and GPT-4.1 nano has 38.