Head-to-head comparison across 2benchmark categories. Overall scores shown here use BenchLM's provisional ranking lane.
GLM-5.1
82
Grok 4.3
75
Verified leaderboard positions: GLM-5.1 #25 · Grok 4.3 unranked
Pick GLM-5.1 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Grok 4.3 only becomes the better choice if knowledge is the priority or you want the cheaper token bill.
Coding
+13.6 difference
Knowledge
+1.6 difference
GLM-5.1
Grok 4.3
$1.4 / $4.4
$1.25 / $2.5
N/A
209 t/s
N/A
12.36s
203K
1M
Pick GLM-5.1 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Grok 4.3 only becomes the better choice if knowledge is the priority or you want the cheaper token bill.
GLM-5.1 is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 82 to 75. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
GLM-5.1's sharpest advantage is in coding, where it averages 60.9 against 47.3. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is HLE, 52.3% to 35%. Grok 4.3 does hit back in knowledge, so the answer changes if that is the part of the workload you care about most.
GLM-5.1 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $1.40 input / $4.40 output per 1M tokens, versus $1.25 input / $2.50 output per 1M tokens for Grok 4.3. Grok 4.3 gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 203K for GLM-5.1.
GLM-5.1 is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 82 to 75. The biggest single separator in this matchup is HLE, where the scores are 52.3% and 35%.
Grok 4.3 has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 53.9 versus 52.3. Inside this category, HLE is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
GLM-5.1 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 60.9 versus 47.3. Inside this category, Terminal-Bench Hard is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Estimates at 50,000 req/day · 1000 tokens/req average.
For engineers, researchers, and the plain curious — a weekly brief on new models, ranking shifts, and pricing changes.
Free. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.