GLM-5.1
Z.AI · Open Weight · rank 43 · bench-align-v5
Canonical idglm-5-1
Access typeOpen Weight
Blended $/1M$2.1575% input / 25% output
Capability shape
Seven axes from the ranking source. A missing axis is drawn as a gap.
Runtime service evidence
Measured values with the date they were observed. Nothing is inferred from a sibling model or a provider claim.
Time to first token: latency to the first answer chunk (Artificial Analysis, via BenchLM). Reasoning models include thinking time, so values can run to tens or hundreds of seconds.
Evidence key: Observed
| Measurement | Value | Observed | Last good | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Time to first token | 62.68 s | 2026-09-17 | 2026-09-17 | |
| Throughput | 62 tok/s | 2026-09-17 | 2026-09-17 |
Regional or per-endpoint measurements appear only when the API supplies them; none are modelled here.
Endpoint and price matrix
Every published price component, including cache reads and writes.
| Component | USD | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| Input / 1M tokens | $1.40 | |
| Output / 1M tokens | $4.40 | |
| Cache read / 1M tokens | Unavailable | |
| Cache write / 1M tokens | Unavailable | |
| Blended / 1M (75% input / 25% output) | $2.15 |
Self-hosted listingZ.AI's official pricing page lists GLM-5.1 at $1.40 input / $4.40 output per million tokens.The rates above are a hosted price matched from another provider, not a first-party list price.
Workload-aware monthly cost example
10 conversations per day × 8 messages × 22 active days, 1200 input and 400 output tokens per message, no cache. This uses the same calculator as the cost simulator, so an unavailable applicable rate makes the example unavailable too.
Benchmark record
42 matched benchmark rows with their published value, unit, and provenance.
Knowledge
| Benchmark | Value | Tasks | Difficulty | Provenance |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| GPQA-D GPQA Diamond | 86.2 | Graduate-level science questions | Graduate level | Trinity-Large-Thinking: Scaling an Open Source Frontier Agent |
| HLE Humanity's Last Exam | 52.3 | Expert-level questions | Frontier expert level | Humanity's Last Exam |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index | 26.4 | Cross-benchmark intelligence index | Display-only external reference | Artificial Analysis |
| AA-GPQA Diamond Artificial Analysis GPQA Diamond | 86.8 | Graduate-level science questions | Graduate-level science reasoning | Artificial Analysis GPQA Diamond Benchmark Leaderboard |
| AA-HLE Artificial Analysis Humanity's Last Exam | 30.1 | Expert-level questions | Frontier expert reasoning | Artificial Analysis Humanity's Last Exam Benchmark Leaderboard |
| AA-Omniscience Index Artificial Analysis Omniscience Index | 0.9 | Knowledge questions | Broad factual knowledge | AA-Omniscience: Knowledge and Hallucination Benchmark |
| AA-Omniscience Accuracy Artificial Analysis Omniscience Accuracy | 23.7 | Knowledge questions | Broad knowledge | Artificial Analysis model benchmarks |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination Rate Artificial Analysis Omniscience Hallucination Rate | 29.9 | Knowledge questions | Factuality | Artificial Analysis model benchmarks |
| GPQA Diamond (Vals) GPQA Diamond, Vals AI run | 84.5 | Graduate-level science questions | Expert reasoning | Vals AI GPQA Diamond, Vals AI run leaderboard |
| MMLU-Pro (Vals) MMLU-Pro, Vals AI run | 86.9 | Academic multiple-choice questions | Broad academic knowledge | Vals AI MMLU-Pro, Vals AI run leaderboard |
Coding
| Benchmark | Value | Tasks | Difficulty | Provenance |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| SWE-Rebench SWE-Rebench | 62.7 | Fresh GitHub issues (rolling window) | Professional software engineering | SWE-Rebench: Contamination-Free Evaluation of Software Engineering Agents |
| SWE-bench Pro SWE-bench Pro | 58.4 | 1,865 repository problems | Long-horizon professional engineering | SWE-Bench Pro: Can AI Agents Solve Long-Horizon Software Engineering Tasks? |
| OpenHarmony Bench OpenHarmony Bench v1.0 | 52.3 | 153 app-development and bug-fix tasks | End-to-end OpenHarmony application development | OpenHarmony Bench: Evaluating LLMs and Coding Agents on OpenHarmony App Development |
| Vibe Code Bench Vibe Code Bench v1.1 | 31.46 | End-to-end web application builds | End-to-end software delivery | Vibe Code Bench: Evaluating AI Models on End-to-End Web Application Development |
| NL2Repo NL2Repo | 42.7 | Natural language to repository tasks | System-level software comprehension | MiniMax M2.7: Early Echoes of Self-Evolution |
| AA Coding Index Artificial Analysis Coding Index | 55.8 | Cross-benchmark coding index | Display-only external reference | Artificial Analysis model leaderboards |
| AA-SciCode Artificial Analysis SciCode | 44.8 | Scientific coding subproblems | Scientific programming | Artificial Analysis SciCode Benchmark Leaderboard |
| LiveCodeBench (Vals) LiveCodeBench, Vals AI run | 81.4 | Competitive programming problems (easy, medium, hard) | Frontier coding | Vals AI LiveCodeBench, Vals AI run leaderboard |
| SWE-bench (Vals) SWE-bench, Vals AI run | 76.4 | Real repository issues by human time bucket | Frontier coding agents | Vals AI SWE-bench, Vals AI run leaderboard |
Mathematics
| Benchmark | Value | Tasks | Difficulty | Provenance |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| AIME26 AIME 2026 | 95.3 | Competition math problems | Olympiad-style mathematics | Qwen3.6 launch benchmarks |
| HMMT Nov 2025 Harvard-MIT Mathematics Tournament November 2025 | 94.0 | Competition math problems | Olympiad-style mathematics | Qwen3.6 launch benchmarks |
| HMMT Feb 2026 Harvard-MIT Mathematics Tournament February 2026 | 82.6 | Competition math problems | Olympiad-style mathematics | Qwen3.6 launch benchmarks |
| MMAnswerBench MMAnswerBench | 83.8 | Multimodal math questions | Advanced mathematical reasoning | Qwen3.6 launch benchmarks |
| FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3) FrontierMath v2 Tiers 1-3 | 33.448 | 295 private advanced mathematics problems | From olympiad-plus to early research mathematics | FrontierMath v2 benchmark hub |
| FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4) FrontierMath v2 Tier 4 | 12.500 | 43 private extreme-difficulty mathematics problems | Research-level mathematics requiring hours or days of expert work | FrontierMath Tier 4 v2 leaderboard |
Reasoning
| Benchmark | Value | Tasks | Difficulty | Provenance |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| AA-LCR Artificial Analysis Long Context Reasoning | 73.7 | Long-context reasoning tasks | Long-context reasoning | Artificial Analysis model benchmarks |
| CritPt Critical Physics Tasks | 4.6 | Research-level physics questions | Research-level physics reasoning | CritPt Benchmark Leaderboard |
Instruction Following
| Benchmark | Value | Tasks | Difficulty | Provenance |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBench Artificial Analysis IFBench | 76.3 | Verifiable instruction constraints | Instruction precision | Artificial Analysis IFBench Benchmark Leaderboard |
Agentic
| Benchmark | Value | Tasks | Difficulty | Provenance |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench 2.0 Terminal-Bench 2.0 | 63.5 | Terminal-based software tasks | Professional software engineering | Terminal-Bench 2.0 |
| BrowseComp BrowseComp | 68 | Research questions requiring browsing | Hard web research | BrowseComp |
| GDPval-AA GDPval-AA | 1181 | Agentic real-world work tasks | Professional agentic workflows | DeepSeek-V4 Technical Report |
| GDPval-AA GDPval-AA normalized | 34.0 | Economically valuable tasks | Professional agentic workflows | Artificial Analysis model benchmarks |
| AA Agentic Index Artificial Analysis Agentic Index | 25.2 | Cross-benchmark agentic index | Display-only external reference | Artificial Analysis model leaderboards |
| Gert Labs Gert Labs Composite Game Benchmark | 60.11 | Novel game environments | Agentic coding and decision-making | Gert Labs rankings |
| CyberGym CyberGym | 68.7 | 1,507 vulnerability analysis instances | Real-world cybersecurity | CyberGym: Evaluating AI Agents' Real-World Cybersecurity Capabilities at Scale |
| MCP Atlas MCP Atlas | 71.8 | Tool-integrated agent tasks | Advanced tool use | Introducing GPT-5.4 mini and nano |
| τ²-bench results τ²-Bench Tool-Agent-User Evaluation | 97.7 | Airline, retail, and telecom customer-service task sets | Dual-control customer-service workflows | τ²-Bench: Evaluating Conversational Agents in a Dual-Control Environment |
| Claw-Eval Claw-Eval | 62.3 | 300 tasks, 2,159 rubrics | Real-world general, multi-turn, and native multimodal agent execution | Claw-Eval: Towards Trustworthy Evaluation of Autonomous Agents |
| ResearchClawBench ResearchClawBench | 18.2 | 40 tasks across 10 scientific domains | Scientific research re-discovery | ResearchClawBench: A Benchmark for End-to-End Autonomous Scientific Research |
| τ³-bench results τ³-Bench Tool-Agent-User Evaluation | 70.6 | Corrected customer-service tasks plus knowledge and voice evaluation modes | Long-horizon, multimodal, and knowledge-aware tool use | Official τ³-bench repository and release notes |
| Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals) Terminal-Bench 2.1, Vals AI run | 56.9 | Difficult terminal tasks | Frontier agentic | Vals AI Terminal-Bench 2.1, Vals AI run leaderboard |
Multimodal & Grounded
| Benchmark | Value | Tasks | Difficulty | Provenance |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Design Arena Website Design Arena Website Elo | 1290 | Website generation comparisons | Design and website generation | OpenRouter Grok 4.3 benchmarks |
Lifecycle and limitations log
Lifecycle events the source associates with this model, plus what this profile does not claim.
No lifecycle event references this model.
That is not evidence the model has no lifecycle plan — only that this source published none.
What this profile does not claimValues are reproduced exactly as their sources published them, in the units those sources declared; none are converted, interpolated, or averaged across providers. Any field marked unavailable was attempted and not returned — the attempt timestamp is in each badge. Last attempted fetch for this model’s score: 2026-09-17 17:17 UTC.