Model comparison

GLM-5.1 vs GPT-5.4 nano

Data verified July 23, 2026

Head-to-head evidence from 21 shared benchmark results across 6 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

GLM-5.1

Z.AI

67.74/100

Margin

0.9pts

← winning

GPT-5.4 nano

OpenAI

66.79/100

3 category wins0 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: GLM-5.1 #18 (Supported); GPT-5.4 nano #25 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. GLM-5.1 and GPT-5.4 nano share 21 comparable benchmark results. 3 of 8 categories are comparable. 15 results are unique to GLM-5.1; 8 to GPT-5.4 nano.

Updated July 23, 2026

Shared results: 21
GLM-5.1 only: 15
GPT-5.4 nano only: 8
Comparable categories: 3 / 8

Pick GLM-5.1 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. GPT-5.4 nano only becomes the better choice if you want the cheaper token bill or you need the larger 400K context window.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 21 shared benchmark results across 6 evidence categories; 3 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 66.79. 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 21. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is Terminal-Bench 2.0, 63.5% to 46.3%.

GLM-5.1 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $1.40 input / $4.40 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.20 input / $1.25 output per 1M tokens for GPT-5.4 nano. That is roughly 3.5x on output cost alone. GPT-5.4 nano gives you the larger context window at 400K, 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 scores and score margins for GLM-5.1 and GPT-5.4 nano
Category	GLM-5.1	Δ	GPT-5.4 nano
Math	GLM-5.162.0	Margin← 41.0	GPT-5.4 nano21.0
Agentic	GLM-5.165.4	Margin← 22.5	GPT-5.4 nano42.9
Knowledge	GLM-5.152.3	Margin← 8.5	GPT-5.4 nano43.8
Coding	GLM-5.161.3	MarginNo overlap	GPT-5.4 nanoNot measured
Multimodal	GLM-5.1Not measured	MarginNo overlap	GPT-5.4 nano66.1

Decisive benchmark drivers

The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.

A · GLM-5.1B · GPT-5.4 nano

Terminal-Bench 2.0
Agentic
Source ↗
A 63.5%B 46.3%
Winner: GLM-5.1Δ 17.2
Terminal-Bench 2.0: GLM-5.1 scored 63.5%; GPT-5.4 nano scored 46.3%. GLM-5.1 wins this benchmark.
HLE
Knowledge
Source ↗
A 52.3%B 37.7%
Winner: GLM-5.1Δ 14.6
HLE: GLM-5.1 scored 52.3%; GPT-5.4 nano scored 37.7%. GLM-5.1 wins this benchmark.
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)
Math
Source ↗
A 33.448%B 25.860%
Winner: GLM-5.1Δ 7.6
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3): GLM-5.1 scored 33.448%; GPT-5.4 nano scored 25.860%. GLM-5.1 wins this benchmark.
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)
Math
Source ↗
A 12.500%B 6.250%
Winner: GLM-5.1Δ 6.3
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4): GLM-5.1 scored 12.500%; GPT-5.4 nano scored 6.250%. GLM-5.1 wins this benchmark.

Operational comparison

Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.

Metric	GLM-5.1	GPT-5.4 nano	Comparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens	GLM-5.1$1.4 input / $4.4 output	GPT-5.4 nano$0.2 input / $1.25 output	GPT-5.4 nano has the lower combined listed price.
Generation speedtokens per second	GLM-5.1Not available	GPT-5.4 nano191 tok/s	A complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first token	GLM-5.1Not available	GPT-5.4 nano3.64 s	A complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokens	GLM-5.1203K	GPT-5.4 nano400K	GPT-5.4 nano lists the larger context window.

Benchmark Deep Dive

AgenticGLM-5.1 wins

15 benchmarks

Benchmark	GLM-5.1	GPT-5.4 nano	Result
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source	63.5%	46.3%	GLM-5.1 leads
BrowseCompSource	68%	—	Not comparable
τ³-bench resultsSource	70.6%	—	Not comparable
MCP AtlasSource	71.8%	56.1%	GLM-5.1 leads
CyberGymSource	68.7%	—	Not comparable
Claw-EvalSource	62.3%	—	Not comparable
AA Agentic IndexSource	29.9%	27.5%	GLM-5.1 leads
τ²-bench resultsSource	97.7%	76%	GLM-5.1 leads
GDPval-AASource	37.8%	30.0%	GLM-5.1 leads
Gert LabsSource	60.11%	—	Not comparable
GDPval-AASource	1257	1100	GLM-5.1 leads
ResearchClawBenchSource	18.2%	—	Not comparable
OSWorld-VerifiedSource	—	39%	Not comparable
ToolathlonSource	—	35.5%	Not comparable
APEX-Agents-AASource	—	24.9%	Not comparable

Coding

6 benchmarks

Benchmark	GLM-5.1	GPT-5.4 nano	Result
SWE-bench ProSource	58.4%	—	Not comparable
NL2RepoSource	42.7%	—	Not comparable
SWE-RebenchSource	62.7%	—	Not comparable
Vibe Code BenchSource	31.46%	26.10%	GLM-5.1 leads
AA Coding IndexSource	55.8%	56.1%	GPT-5.4 nano leads
AA-SciCodeSource	43.8%	46.9%	GPT-5.4 nano leads

Reasoning

2 benchmarks

Benchmark	GLM-5.1	GPT-5.4 nano	Result
AA-LCRSource	62.3%	66.0%	GPT-5.4 nano leads
CritPtSource	4.6%	9.3%	GPT-5.4 nano leads

KnowledgeGLM-5.1 wins

10 benchmarks

Benchmark	GLM-5.1	GPT-5.4 nano	Result
GPQA-DSource	86.2%	—	Not comparable
HLESource	52.3%	37.7%	GLM-5.1 leads
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource	40.2%	38.2%	GLM-5.1 leads
AA-GPQA DiamondSource	86.8%	81.7%	GLM-5.1 leads
AA-HLESource	28.0%	26.5%	GLM-5.1 leads
AA-Omniscience IndexSource	1.9%	-29.5%	GLM-5.1 leads
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource	24.2%	25.4%	GPT-5.4 nano leads
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource	29.4%	73.6%	GLM-5.1 leads
GPQASource	—	82.8%	Not comparable
HLE w/o toolsSource	—	24.3%	Not comparable

MathGLM-5.1 wins

6 benchmarks

Benchmark	GLM-5.1	GPT-5.4 nano	Result
AIME26Source	95.3%	—	Not comparable
HMMT Nov 2025Source	94.0%	—	Not comparable
HMMT Feb 2026Source	82.6%	—	Not comparable
MMAnswerBenchSource	83.8%	—	Not comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source	33.448%	25.860%	GLM-5.1 leads
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source	12.500%	6.250%	GLM-5.1 leads

Multimodal

4 benchmarks

Benchmark	GLM-5.1	GPT-5.4 nano	Result
Design Arena WebsiteSource	1305	—	Not comparable
MMMU-ProSource	—	66.1%	Not comparable
MMMU-Pro w/ PythonSource	—	69.5%	Not comparable
AA-MMMU-ProSource	—	65.4%	Not comparable

Inst. Following

1 benchmarks

Benchmark	GLM-5.1	GPT-5.4 nano	Result
AA-IFBenchSource	76.3%	75.9%	GLM-5.1 leads

Frequently Asked Questions (4)

Which is better, GLM-5.1 or GPT-5.4 nano?

GLM-5.1 is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 67.74 to 66.79. The biggest single separator in this matchup is Terminal-Bench 2.0, where the scores are 63.5% and 46.3%.

Which is better for knowledge tasks, GLM-5.1 or GPT-5.4 nano?

GLM-5.1 has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 52.3 versus 43.8. Inside this category, AA-Omniscience Hallucination Rate is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for math, GLM-5.1 or GPT-5.4 nano?

GLM-5.1 has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 62 versus 21. Inside this category, FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3) is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for agentic tasks, GLM-5.1 or GPT-5.4 nano?

GLM-5.1 has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 65.4 versus 42.9. Inside this category, GDPval-AA 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.

GLM-5.1

API / mo$4,350

Self-host / mo$18,221

Break-even264M/day

GPT-5.4 nano

API / mo$1,088

Self-host / moNot listed

Break-even—

Proprietary model — self-hosting not applicable.

Model the full break-even

Related Comparisons

Explore More

Z.AI Compare Pricing Methodology Find Your Best LLM Overall Rankings

Last updated: July 23, 2026

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.