Model comparison
Gemini 3 Pro vs GLM-5.1
Head-to-head evidence from 15 shared benchmark results across 6 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: Gemini 3 Pro #19 (Supported); GLM-5.1 #18 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Gemini 3 Pro and GLM-5.1 share 15 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 12 results are unique to Gemini 3 Pro; 21 to GLM-5.1.
Updated July 23, 2026- Shared results
- 15
- Gemini 3 Pro only
- 12
- GLM-5.1 only
- 21
- Comparable categories
- 1 / 8
Pick GLM-5.1 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Gemini 3 Pro only becomes the better choice if you need the larger 2M context window or you would rather avoid the extra latency and token burn of a reasoning model.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 15 shared benchmark results across 6 evidence categories; 1 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.
Why this result
GLM-5.1 has the cleaner BenchAlign overall profile here, landing at 67.74 versus 67.73. It is a real lead, but still close enough that category-level strengths matter more than the headline number.
GLM-5.1's sharpest advantage is in mathematics, where it averages 62 against 32.9. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4), 18.750% to 12.500%.
Gemini 3 Pro is also the more expensive model on tokens at $2.00 input / $12.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $1.40 input / $4.40 output per 1M tokens for GLM-5.1. That is roughly 2.7x on output cost alone. GLM-5.1 is the reasoning model in the pair, while Gemini 3 Pro is not. That usually helps on harder chain-of-thought-heavy tests, but it can also mean more latency and more token spend in real use. Gemini 3 Pro gives you the larger context window at 2M, compared with 203K for GLM-5.1.
Category breakdown
Exact category averages are shown below. Not measured means BenchLM does not have enough sourced public coverage for that model and category.
| Category | Gemini 3 Pro | Δ | GLM-5.1 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Math | Gemini 3 Pro32.9 | Margin→ 29.1 | GLM-5.162.0 |
| Agentic | Gemini 3 ProNot measured | MarginNo overlap | GLM-5.165.4 |
| Coding | Gemini 3 ProNot measured | MarginNo overlap | GLM-5.161.3 |
| Reasoning | Gemini 3 Pro31.1 | MarginNo overlap | GLM-5.1Not measured |
| Knowledge | Gemini 3 ProNot measured | MarginNo overlap | GLM-5.152.3 |
| Multimodal | Gemini 3 Pro81.1 | MarginNo overlap | GLM-5.1Not measured |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)
MathA 18.750%B 12.500%Winner: Gemini 3 ProΔ 6.3FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4): Gemini 3 Pro scored 18.750%; GLM-5.1 scored 12.500%. Gemini 3 Pro wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)
MathA 37.600%B 33.448%Winner: Gemini 3 ProΔ 4.2FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3): Gemini 3 Pro scored 37.600%; GLM-5.1 scored 33.448%. Gemini 3 Pro wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Gemini 3 Pro | GLM-5.1 | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Gemini 3 Pro$2 input / $12 output | GLM-5.1$1.4 input / $4.4 output | GLM-5.1 has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Gemini 3 Pro109 tok/s | GLM-5.1Not available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Gemini 3 Pro32.65 s | GLM-5.1Not available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Gemini 3 Pro2M | GLM-5.1203K | Gemini 3 Pro lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic13 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemini 3 Pro | GLM-5.1 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| τ²-bench resultsSource | 87.1% | 97.7% | GLM-5.1 leads |
| Gert LabsSource | 63.23% | 60.11% | Gemini 3 Pro leads |
| JobBenchSource | 11.4% | — | Not comparable |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | — | 63.5% | Not comparable |
| BrowseCompSource | — | 68% | Not comparable |
| τ³-bench resultsSource | — | 70.6% | Not comparable |
| MCP AtlasSource | — | 71.8% | Not comparable |
| CyberGymSource | — | 68.7% | Not comparable |
| Claw-EvalSource | — | 62.3% | Not comparable |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | — | 29.9% | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | — | 37.8% | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | — | 1257 | Not comparable |
| ResearchClawBenchSource | — | 18.2% | Not comparable |
Coding7 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemini 3 Pro | GLM-5.1 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vibe Code BenchSource | 14.30% | 31.46% | GLM-5.1 leads |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 56.1% | 43.8% | Gemini 3 Pro leads |
| AA LiveCodeBenchSource | 91.7% | — | Not comparable |
| SWE-bench ProSource | — | 58.4% | Not comparable |
| NL2RepoSource | — | 42.7% | Not comparable |
| SWE-RebenchSource | — | 62.7% | Not comparable |
| AA Coding IndexSource | — | 55.8% | Not comparable |
Reasoning3 benchmarks
Knowledge9 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemini 3 Pro | GLM-5.1 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 39.5% | 40.2% | GLM-5.1 leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 90.8% | 86.8% | Gemini 3 Pro leads |
| AA-HLESource | 37.2% | 28.0% | Gemini 3 Pro leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | 15.8% | 1.9% | Gemini 3 Pro leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 55.9% | 24.2% | Gemini 3 Pro leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 90.9% | 29.4% | GLM-5.1 leads |
| AA MMLU-ProSource | 89.8% | — | Not comparable |
| GPQA-DSource | — | 86.2% | Not comparable |
| HLESource | — | 52.3% | Not comparable |
MathGLM-5.1 wins6 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemini 3 Pro | GLM-5.1 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source | 37.600% | 33.448% | Gemini 3 Pro leads |
| FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source | 18.750% | 12.500% | Gemini 3 Pro leads |
| AIME26Source | — | 95.3% | Not comparable |
| HMMT Nov 2025Source | — | 94.0% | Not comparable |
| HMMT Feb 2026Source | — | 82.6% | Not comparable |
| MMAnswerBenchSource | — | 83.8% | Not comparable |
Multilingual1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemini 3 Pro | GLM-5.1 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Global-MMLU-LiteSource | 92.2% | — | Not comparable |
Multimodal8 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemini 3 Pro | GLM-5.1 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMMU-ProSource | 81% | — | Not comparable |
| MathVisionSource | 86.6% | — | Not comparable |
| VideoMMMUSource | 87.6% | — | Not comparable |
| ScreenSpot ProSource | 72.7% | — | Not comparable |
| CharXivSource | 81.4% | — | Not comparable |
| V*Source | 88.0% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-MMMU-ProSource | 80.2% | — | Not comparable |
| Design Arena WebsiteSource | — | 1305 | Not comparable |
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemini 3 Pro | GLM-5.1 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | 70.4% | 76.3% | GLM-5.1 leads |
Frequently Asked Questions (2)
Which is better, Gemini 3 Pro or GLM-5.1?
GLM-5.1 is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 67.74 to 67.73. The biggest single separator in this matchup is FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4), where the scores are 18.750% and 12.500%.
Which is better for math, Gemini 3 Pro or GLM-5.1?
GLM-5.1 has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 62 versus 32.9. Inside this category, FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4) is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Self-host vs API cost
Estimates at 50,000 req/day · 1000 tokens/req average.
Related Comparisons
Explore More
Choose a model with this week’s evidence
Join 2,000+ readers for ranking moves, pricing changes, and the claims that still need proof.
One email each week. Unsubscribe anytime.