#18 GLM 5
medium- Cost
- $0.005
- Time
- 20.7s
- Tokens
- 2,068 tok
Z.ai
Release: 2026-02-12
Tested on: 2026-05-21 23:44
z-ai/glm-5::medium
744B total (40B active)MoEOpen source
(medium)
(none)
Summary
GLM 5 scores 8.2 on AI BENCHY and ranks #18. It has 10.0 reliability, a 81.7% pass rate, $0.237 total cost, and 33.39s average response time.
What makes GLM 5 unique: Its total benchmark cost is unusually low for its score range.
Model facts
Researched on 2026-08-12
- Parameters
- 744B total (40B active)
- Architecture
- MoE
- Availability
- Open source
- License
- MIT
8.2
Consistency
8.4
10.0
$0.237
Total Output Tokens
119,898
Total Input Tokens
0
Input Price
$0.600 / 1M
Output Price
$1.920 / 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-06-04 13:07 Re-test | 7.7 | 10.0 | $0.307 ↑ | Compare | |
| 2026-06-04 13:07 Re-test | 7.7 | 10.0 | $0.372 ↑ | Compare | |
| 2026-06-04 13:07 New test added | 8.3 | 10.0 | $0.228 ↓ | Compare | |
| 2026-05-21 23:44 Re-test | 8.2 | 10.0 | $0.237 | Current run | |
| 2026-04-22 12:55 First recorded run | 8.4 | N/A | $0.155 | Compare |
Run comparison
| Run | Benchmark coverage | Score | Consistency | Reliability | Tests Correct | Flaky tests | Total Output Tokens | Total Input Tokens | Total Cost | Response Time (avg) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-05-21 23:44 · Re-test | 60/60 attempts | 8.2 | 8.4 | 10.0 | 14/20 | 4 | 119,898 | 0 | $0.237 | 33.39s |
| 2026-06-04 13:07 · Re-test | 63/63 attempts | 7.7 | 8.1 | 10.0 | 15/21 | 4 | 124,566 | 35,224 | $0.307 | 33.54s |
| Difference | — | +0.5 | +0.3 | 0.0 | -1 | 0 | -4668 | -35224 | -$0.071 | -152ms |
Benchmark coverage differs: 60/60 attempts (Target: 3 repeats per test) versus 63/63 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 5mediumvsQwen3.7 FlashhighGLM 5mediumvsSeed-2.0-CodelowGLM 5mediumvsClaude Opus 4.8lowGLM 5mediumvsClaude Opus 4.6mediumGLM 5mediumvsSeed-2.0-LitemediumGLM 5mediumvsDeepSeek V4 ProhighGLM 5mediumvsQwen3.8 27BmediumGLM 5mediumvsDeepSeek V4 Flash 0423highGLM 5mediumvsClaude Sonnet 4.6mediumGLM 5mediumvsGPT-5.6 Lunahigh
Category Breakdown
| Category | Score | Consistency | Tests Correct |
|---|---|---|---|
| Anti-AI Tricks | 10.0 | 10.0 | |
| Coding | 10.0 | 10.0 | |
| Combined | 10.0 | 10.0 | |
| Data parsing and extraction | 7.1 | 5.6 | |
| Domain specific | 3.5 | 4.4 | |
| General Intelligence | 6.1 | 3.1 | |
| Instructions following | 10.0 | 10.0 | |
| Puzzle Solving | 10.0 | 10.0 | |
| Tool Calling | 10.0 | 10.0 | |
| Trivia | 3.0 | 10.0 |