# GLM-5 vs GPT-5.5

> GPT-5.5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 63.4 to 46.1 on the Noometry Index. GLM-5 costs 7.3× less per token, which makes it the better buy when GPT-5.5's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/glm-5-vs-gpt-5-5
- Last updated: 2026-10-11
- Shared benchmarks: 39

## Summary

- They share 39 benchmarks with published results for both. GLM-5 scores higher in 0 categories and GPT-5.5 in 9 categories; 9 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in reasoning, where GPT-5.5 leads 72.8 to 27.6.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is ARC-AGI-2: 4.9% for GLM-5 and 85% for GPT-5.5.
- GLM-5 is cheaper at $1 / $3.20 per million input/output tokens, against $5 / $30 for GPT-5.5.
- GPT-5.5 accepts more context: 1.05M tokens versus 205K.
- GLM-5 has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

## Snapshot

| | GLM-5 | GPT-5.5 |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Z.ai (Zhipu) | OpenAI |
| Noometry Index | 46.1 | 63.4 |
| Rank | 66 | 9 |
| Context | 205K | 1.05M |
| Input $/M | $1 | $5 |
| Output $/M | $3.20 | $30 |
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |

## Coding

- GLM-5: 49.0 (#52)
- GPT-5.5: 58.2 (#17)

| Benchmark | GLM-5 | GPT-5.5 |
|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench Verified | 72.1% | 80.6% |
| LMArena WebDev | 1434 | 1513 |
| WeirdML | 48.2% | 84.9% |
| LMArena Coding | 1461 | 1494 |
| ALE-Bench | 765.62 | 1,943 |
| DeepSWE | — | 67% |
| FrontierCode | — | 43% |
| SWE-bench Verified (bash only) | 72.8% | — |
| SWE-bench Multilingual | 69.7% | — |
| SciCode | — | 56.1% |
| GSO | — | 40.2% |
| MirrorCode | — | 10% |

## Agentic & Tool Use

- GLM-5: 31.1 (#71)
- GPT-5.5: 50.7 (#6)

| Benchmark | GLM-5 | GPT-5.5 |
|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench | 52.4% | 84.7% |
| τ²-bench Banking | 9.8% | 44.6% |
| Vending-Bench 2 | 4,432 | 7,524 |
| APEX-Agents | — | 55.1% |
| OSWorld 2.0 | — | 13% |
| Remote Labor Index | — | 6.3% |
| τ²-bench Airline | 82.5% | — |
| τ²-bench Retail | 73.7% | — |
| τ²-bench Telecom | 86.8% | — |
| DeepResearch Bench | — | 54% |
| PostTrainBench | — | 27.2% |
| ExploitBench | — | 47.4% |
| GBAEval | — | 53.2% |
| GDP.pdf | — | 26% |
| LMArena Search | — | 1242 |

## Reasoning

- GLM-5: 27.6 (#116)
- GPT-5.5: 72.8 (#11)

| Benchmark | GLM-5 | GPT-5.5 |
|---|---|---|
| ARC-AGI-2 | 4.9% | 85% |
| SimpleBench | 53.2% | 69% |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 75% | 88.8% |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 74.8% | 96.2% |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 44.7% | 95% |
| Chess Puzzles | 10% | 54% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1452 | 1489 |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 145.83 | 159.1 |
| ForecastBench | 61 | 60.6 |
| CritPt | — | 27.1% |
| EBR-Bench | — | 34.3% |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | — | 56% |
| DTBench | — | 96% |
| LMCA | — | 54.3% |
| Surface Evolver Bench | — | 88.1% |
| Bench to the Future 3 | — | 0.14 |

## Math

- GLM-5: 46.4 (#71)
- GPT-5.5: 81.7 (#11)

| Benchmark | GLM-5 | GPT-5.5 |
|---|---|---|
| MathArena Final-Answer Competitions | 65.7% | 94.3% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 80% | 100% |
| LMArena Math | 1440 | 1486 |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 16.4% | 51.7% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | 2.1% | 35.4% |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | — | 85.3% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | — | 72.5% |
| ProofBench | — | 50% |
| FrontierMath Erdős | — | 0% |

## Knowledge

- GLM-5: 52.3 (#64)
- GPT-5.5: 64.4 (#17)

| Benchmark | GLM-5 | GPT-5.5 |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 87.8% | 94% |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 10.1% | 9.3% |
| LMArena Expert | 1454 | 1508 |
| SimpleQA Verified | — | 63% |

## Multimodal

- GLM-5: —
- GPT-5.5: 46.9 (#12)

| Benchmark | GLM-5 | GPT-5.5 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | — | 1297 |
| Blueprint-Bench 2 | — | 36.2% |
| Furniture Assembly | — | 44.2% |
| LMArena Document | — | 1486 |

## Multilingual

- GLM-5: 53.7 (#58)
- GPT-5.5: 56.4 (#20)

| Benchmark | GLM-5 | GPT-5.5 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1430 | 1467 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1511 | 1533 |
| LMArena French | 1455 | 1486 |
| LMArena German | 1445 | 1480 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1416 | 1498 |
| LMArena Korean | 1423 | 1460 |
| LMArena Russian | 1436 | 1473 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1454 | 1468 |

## Instruction Following

- GLM-5: 75.2 (#67)
- GPT-5.5: 77.5 (#18)

| Benchmark | GLM-5 | GPT-5.5 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1428 | 1479 |

## Long Context

- GLM-5: 44.7 (#60)
- GPT-5.5: 48.3 (#12)

| Benchmark | GLM-5 | GPT-5.5 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1446 | 1484 |
| CL-bench | 18.7% | — |
| CL-bench Life | — | 22.2% |

## Writing & Preference

- GLM-5: 66.0 (#38)
- GPT-5.5: 72.7 (#13)

| Benchmark | GLM-5 | GPT-5.5 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1446 | 1472 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1439 | 1455 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1601 | 1844 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1456 | 1476 |
| EQ-Bench 4 | — | 1315 |

## FAQ

### Is GLM-5 better than GPT-5.5?

GPT-5.5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 63.4 to 46.1 on the Noometry Index. GLM-5 costs 7.3× less per token, which makes it the better buy when GPT-5.5's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

### Which is cheaper, GLM-5 or GPT-5.5?

GLM-5 is cheaper. It lists at $1 per million input tokens and $3.20 per million output tokens; GPT-5.5 lists at $5 and $30.

### Is GLM-5 or GPT-5.5 better for coding?

GPT-5.5 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 58.2 versus 49.0 in the Noometry coding category.

### Which has the bigger context window?

GPT-5.5 does, with 1.05M tokens against 205K.

### How many benchmarks do GLM-5 and GPT-5.5 share?

39 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-5 has 45 scored results on Noometry and GPT-5.5 has 71.