Model comparison

GLM-5.1 vs Magistral Medium

GLM-5.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 47.6 to 34.8 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 19 shared benchmarks.

GLM-5.1 Z.ai (Zhipu)

47.6

Rank #51 Confirmed

Magistral Medium Mistral AI

34.8

Rank #224 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 19 benchmarks with published results for both. GLM-5.1 scores higher in 8 categories and Magistral Medium in 0 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in reasoning, where GLM-5.1 leads 38.2 to 8.7.
  • GLM-5.1 is cheaper at $1.40 / $4.40 per million input/output tokens, against $2 / $5 for Magistral Medium.
  • GLM-5.1 accepts more context: 200K tokens versus 128K.

Side by side

GLM-5.1 and Magistral Medium specifications
GLM-5.1Magistral Medium
ProviderZ.ai (Zhipu)Mistral AI
Noometry Index47.634.8
Released2026-04-072025-03-17
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window200K128K
Max output131K16K
Input $ / M tokens$1.40$2
Output $ / M tokens$4.40$5
Results tracked4122

Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry

Category by category

Coding GLM-5.1 leads

GLM-5.1: 48.5 (#52), Magistral Medium: 38.6 (#161)

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5.1Magistral Medium
SciCode43.8%39.2%
LMArena Coding14861319
SWE-bench Verified74.2%—
LMArena WebDev1509—
WeirdML57.1%—
ALE-Bench887.1—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

GLM-5.1: 24.8 (#106), Magistral Medium: —

Agentic & Tool Use benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5.1Magistral Medium
APEX-Agents40.9%—
ExploitBench18.1%—
GBAEval0%—
Vending-Bench 25,634—

Reasoning GLM-5.1 leads

GLM-5.1: 38.2 (#57), Magistral Medium: 8.7 (#342)

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5.1Magistral Medium
CritPt4.6%0.3%
LMArena Hard Prompts14721267
ARC-AGI-2—0%
SimpleBench55.1%—
Kagi LLM Benchmark—16.2%
NYT Connections (extended)77.7%—
ARC-AGI-1—6.1%
Chess Puzzles19%—
Thematic Generalization69.8%—
Epoch Capabilities Index149.86—

Math GLM-5.1 leads

GLM-5.1: 49.0 (#48), Magistral Medium: 32.4 (#187)

Knowledge GLM-5.1 leads

GLM-5.1: 55.0 (#45), Magistral Medium: 32.9 (#199)

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5.1Magistral Medium
LMArena Expert14771222
GPQA Diamond89.9%—
SimpleQA Verified34%—

Multilingual GLM-5.1 leads

GLM-5.1: 55.2 (#34), Magistral Medium: 39.8 (#219)

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5.1Magistral Medium
LMArena Non-English14481232
LMArena Chinese15161225
LMArena French14781268
LMArena German14661248
LMArena Japanese14361176
LMArena Korean14231125
LMArena Russian14531224
LMArena Spanish14671269

Instruction Following GLM-5.1 leads

GLM-5.1: 76.5 (#41), Magistral Medium: 66.2 (#207)

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5.1Magistral Medium
LMArena Instruction Following14511254

Long Context GLM-5.1 leads

GLM-5.1: 44.9 (#51), Magistral Medium: 39.3 (#178)

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5.1Magistral Medium
LMArena Longer Query14671295

Writing & Preference GLM-5.1 leads

GLM-5.1: 67.2 (#29), Magistral Medium: 46.5 (#214)

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5.1Magistral Medium
LMArena Text14621255
LMArena Creative Writing14541245
LMArena Multi-Turn14731275
EQ-Bench Creative Writing1592—

Frequently asked questions

Is GLM-5.1 better than Magistral Medium?

GLM-5.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 47.6 to 34.8 on the Noometry Index.

Which is cheaper, GLM-5.1 or Magistral Medium?

GLM-5.1 is cheaper. It lists at $1.40 per million input tokens and $4.40 per million output tokens; Magistral Medium lists at $2 and $5.

Is GLM-5.1 or Magistral Medium better for coding?

GLM-5.1 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 48.5 versus 38.6 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

GLM-5.1 does, with 200K tokens against 128K.

How many benchmarks do GLM-5.1 and Magistral Medium share?

19 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-5.1 has 41 scored results on Noometry and Magistral Medium has 22.

Related comparisons

Go deeper