#81 GLM 5.1
none
Invalid SVG
- Cost
- $0.000
- Time
- 300.0s
- Tokens
- 0 tok
Z.ai
Release: 2026-04-07
Tested on: 2026-04-22 12:55
z-ai/glm-5.1::none
744B total (40B active)MoEOpen source
(medium)
(none)
Summary
GLM 5.1 scores 5.6 on AI BENCHY and ranks #81. It has N/A reliability, a 37.0% pass rate, $0.053 total cost, and 4.33s average response time.
What makes GLM 5.1 unique: It is notably fast compared with similar models.
Model facts
Researched on 2026-08-12
- Parameters
- 744B total (40B active)
- Architecture
- MoE
- Availability
- Open source
- License
- MIT
5.6
Consistency
8.2
N/A
$0.053
Total Output Tokens
3,720
Total Input Tokens
0
Input Price
$1.050 / 1M
Output Price
$3.500 / 1M
Flaky tests
4
Flaky tests had mixed outcomes across runs (at least one pass and one fail).
Hamster playing table tennis
Prompt: Create a detailed SVG illustration of a hamster playing table tennis.
Run history
| Tested on | Score | Reliability | Tests Correct | Total Cost | Compare |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-08-14 01:32 Re-test | 5.7 | 10.0 | $0.238 ↑ | Compare | |
| 2026-07-16 21:16 New test added | 5.5 | 10.0 | $0.164 ↓ | Compare | |
| 2026-06-04 13:04 New test added | 5.7 | 10.0 | $0.058 ↓ | Compare | |
| 2026-05-21 23:41 Suite changed | 5.6 | 10.0 | $0.057 | Compare | |
| 2026-05-08 13:04 Suite changed | 5.7 | 10.0 | $0.053 | Compare | |
| 2026-05-08 13:04 Suite changed | 5.7 | 10.0 | $0.053 | Compare | |
| 2026-04-22 12:55 First recorded run | 5.6 | N/A | $0.053 | Current run |
Run comparison
| Run | Benchmark coverage | Score | Consistency | Reliability | Tests Correct | Flaky tests | Total Output Tokens | Total Input Tokens | Total Cost | Response Time (avg) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-04-22 12:55 · First recorded run | 54/54 attempts | 5.6 | 8.2 | N/A | 5/18 | 4 | 3,720 | 0 | $0.053 | 4.33s |
| 2026-07-16 21:16 · New test added | 66/66 attempts | 5.5 | 8.2 | 10.0 | 7/22 | 5 | 14,393 | 124,209 | $0.164 | 6.70s |
| Difference | — | 0.0 | 0.0 | -2 | -1 | -10673 | -124209 | -$0.112 | -2365ms |
Benchmark coverage differs: 54/54 attempts (Target: 3 repeats per test) versus 66/66 attempts (Target: 3 repeats per test). Totals and repeat-sensitive metrics are not directly comparable.
These two runs used different benchmark suites, so the deltas reflect both model changes and suite changes.
Charts
Choose the first model, then click a second model to open a side-by-side page.
Top Models by Score
Score vs Total Cost
Response Time (avg)
Score vs Response Time (avg)
Total Output Tokens
Score vs Total Output Tokens
Quick Compare
GLM 5.1nonevsLing-3.0-flashnoneGLM 5.1nonevsKimi K2.6noneGLM 5.1nonevsInkling SmalllowGLM 5.1nonevsQwen3.5-122B-A10BnoneGLM 5.1nonevsGLM 5noneGLM 5.1nonevsKAT-Coder-Air V2.5highGLM 5.1nonevsNemotron 3 SupermediumFree AvailableGLM 5.1nonevsGemma 4 26B A4BnoneFree AvailableGLM 5.1nonevsNorth Mini CodemediumFree AvailableGLM 5.1nonevsKAT-Coder-Air V2.5medium
Category Breakdown
| Category | Score | Consistency | Tests Correct |
|---|---|---|---|
| Anti-AI Tricks | 4.0 | 6.3 | |
| Coding | 5.1 | 9.1 | |
| Combined | 2.8 | 2.1 | |
| Data parsing and extraction | 10.0 | 10.0 | |
| Domain specific | 2.9 | 7.2 | |
| General Intelligence | 5.0 | 10.0 | |
| Instructions following | 8.3 | 10.0 | |
| Puzzle Solving | 5.7 | 10.0 | |
| Tool Calling | 10.0 | 10.0 |