Model comparison
GLM-5.1 vs Inkling
Head-to-head evidence from 20 shared benchmark results across 5 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: GLM-5.1 #18 (Supported); Inkling #20 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. GLM-5.1 and Inkling share 20 comparable benchmark results. 4 of 8 categories are comparable. 16 results are unique to GLM-5.1; 12 to Inkling.
Updated July 23, 2026- Shared results
- 20
- GLM-5.1 only
- 16
- Inkling only
- 12
- Comparable categories
- 4 / 8
Pick GLM-5.1 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Inkling only becomes the better choice if mathematics is the priority or you need the larger 1M context window.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 20 shared benchmark results across 5 evidence categories; 4 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 67.54. 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 knowledge, where it averages 52.3 against 51.6. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is BrowseComp, 68% to 77.1%. Inkling does hit back in mathematics, so the answer changes if that is the part of the workload you care about most.
Inkling is also the more expensive model on tokens at $1.87 input / $4.68 output per 1M tokens, versus $1.40 input / $4.40 output per 1M tokens for GLM-5.1. GLM-5.1 is the reasoning model in the pair, while Inkling 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. Inkling gives you the larger context window at 1M, 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 | GLM-5.1 | Δ | Inkling |
|---|---|---|---|
| Math | GLM-5.162.0 | Margin→ 35.1 | Inkling97.1 |
| Coding | GLM-5.161.3 | Margin→ 7.3 | Inkling68.6 |
| Agentic | GLM-5.165.4 | Margin→ 4.0 | Inkling69.4 |
| Knowledge | GLM-5.152.3 | Margin← 0.7 | Inkling51.6 |
| Multimodal | GLM-5.1Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Inkling76.5 |
| Inst. Following | GLM-5.1Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Inkling79.8 |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
BrowseComp
AgenticA 68%B 77.1%Winner: InklingΔ 9.1BrowseComp: GLM-5.1 scored 68%; Inkling scored 77.1%. Inkling wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
HLE
KnowledgeA 52.3%B 46%Winner: GLM-5.1Δ 6.3HLE: GLM-5.1 scored 52.3%; Inkling scored 46%. GLM-5.1 wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
SWE-bench Pro
CodingA 58.4%B 54.3%Winner: GLM-5.1Δ 4.1SWE-bench Pro: GLM-5.1 scored 58.4%; Inkling scored 54.3%. GLM-5.1 wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
AIME26
MathA 95.3%B 97.1%Winner: InklingΔ 1.8AIME26: GLM-5.1 scored 95.3%; Inkling scored 97.1%. Inkling wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
Terminal-Bench 2.0
AgenticA 63.5%B 63.8%Winner: InklingΔ 0.3Terminal-Bench 2.0: GLM-5.1 scored 63.5%; Inkling scored 63.8%. Inkling wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | GLM-5.1 | Inkling | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | GLM-5.1$1.4 input / $4.4 output | Inkling$1.87 input / $4.68 output | GLM-5.1 has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | GLM-5.1Not available | InklingNot available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | GLM-5.1Not available | InklingNot available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | GLM-5.1203K | Inkling1M | Inkling lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
AgenticInkling wins15 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | Inkling | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 63.5% | 63.8% | Inkling leads |
| BrowseCompSource | 68% | 77.1% | Inkling leads |
| τ³-bench resultsSource | 70.6% | — | Not comparable |
| MCP AtlasSource | 71.8% | 74.1% | Inkling leads |
| CyberGymSource | 68.7% | — | Not comparable |
| Claw-EvalSource | 62.3% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | 29.9% | 32.3% | Inkling leads |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | 97.7% | — | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | 37.8% | 36.9% | GLM-5.1 leads |
| Gert LabsSource | 60.11% | — | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | 1257 | 1239 | GLM-5.1 leads |
| ResearchClawBenchSource | 18.2% | — | Not comparable |
| Design Arena Agentic Web DevSource | — | 1257 | Not comparable |
| AA BriefcaseSource | — | 836 | Not comparable |
| AA Tau3 BankingSource | — | 23.7% | Not comparable |
CodingInkling wins8 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | Inkling | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench ProSource | 58.4% | 54.3% | GLM-5.1 leads |
| NL2RepoSource | 42.7% | — | Not comparable |
| SWE-RebenchSource | 62.7% | — | Not comparable |
| Vibe Code BenchSource | 31.46% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Coding IndexSource | 55.8% | 52.1% | GLM-5.1 leads |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 43.8% | 46.1% | Inkling leads |
| SWE-bench VerifiedSource | — | 77.6% | Not comparable |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | — | 63.8% | Not comparable |
Reasoning2 benchmarks
KnowledgeGLM-5.1 wins10 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | Inkling | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQA-DSource | 86.2% | 87.9% | Inkling leads |
| HLESource | 52.3% | 46% | GLM-5.1 leads |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 40.2% | 40.7% | Inkling leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 86.8% | 87.2% | Inkling leads |
| AA-HLESource | 28.0% | 29.7% | Inkling leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | 1.9% | 2.1% | Inkling leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 24.2% | 40.0% | Inkling leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 29.4% | 63.1% | GLM-5.1 leads |
| GPQASource | — | 87.9% | Not comparable |
| HLE w/o toolsSource | — | 30% | Not comparable |
MathInkling wins6 benchmarks
Multimodal5 benchmarks
Frequently Asked Questions (5)
Which is better, GLM-5.1 or Inkling?
GLM-5.1 is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 67.74 to 67.54. The biggest single separator in this matchup is BrowseComp, where the scores are 68% and 77.1%.
Which is better for knowledge tasks, GLM-5.1 or Inkling?
GLM-5.1 has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 52.3 versus 51.6. Inside this category, AA-Omniscience Hallucination Rate is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for coding, GLM-5.1 or Inkling?
Inkling has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 68.6 versus 61.3. Inside this category, SWE-bench Pro is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for math, GLM-5.1 or Inkling?
Inkling has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 97.1 versus 62. Inside this category, AIME26 is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for agentic tasks, GLM-5.1 or Inkling?
Inkling has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 69.4 versus 65.4. 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.
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.