Noometry

Model comparison

GLM-5.1 vs Solar Pro4

GLM-5.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 47.8 to 42.1 on the Noometry Index. Solar Pro4 costs 4.1× less per token, which makes it the better buy when GLM-5.1's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Last verified . 18 shared benchmarks.

GLM-5.1 Z.ai (Zhipu)

47.8

Rank #59 Confirmed

Solar Pro4 Upstage

42.1

Rank #121 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 18 benchmarks with published results for both. GLM-5.1 scores higher in 8 categories and Solar Pro4 in 0 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in knowledge, where GLM-5.1 leads 54.9 to 39.8.
  • Solar Pro4 is cheaper at $0.30 / $1.20 per million input/output tokens, against $1.40 / $4.40 for GLM-5.1.
  • Solar Pro4 accepts more context: 524K tokens versus 200K.
  • GLM-5.1 has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

GLM-5.1Solar Pro4
ProviderZ.ai (Zhipu)Upstage
Noometry Index47.842.1
Released2026-04-072026-08-06
WeightsOpenProprietary
Context window200K524K
Max output131K131K
Input $ / M tokens$1.40$0.30
Output $ / M tokens$4.40$1.20
Results tracked4118

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

Category by category

Coding GLM-5.1 leads

GLM-5.1: 48.7 (#55), Solar Pro4: 40.1 (#149)

BenchmarkGLM-5.1Solar Pro4
LMArena WebDev15081371
LMArena Coding14851437
SWE-bench Verified74.2%—
SciCode43.8%—
WeirdML57.1%—
ALE-Bench887.1—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

GLM-5.1: 24.9 (#113), Solar Pro4: —

BenchmarkGLM-5.1Solar Pro4
APEX-Agents40.9%—
ExploitBench18.1%—
GBAEval0%—
Vending-Bench 25,634—

Reasoning GLM-5.1 leads

GLM-5.1: 39.1 (#60), Solar Pro4: 28.5 (#104)

BenchmarkGLM-5.1Solar Pro4
LMArena Hard Prompts14721399
SimpleBench55.1%—
NYT Connections (extended)77.7%—
CritPt4.6%—
Chess Puzzles19%—
Thematic Generalization69.8%—
Epoch Capabilities Index149.84—

Math GLM-5.1 leads

GLM-5.1: 49.7 (#60), Solar Pro4: 38.8 (#128)

BenchmarkGLM-5.1Solar Pro4
LMArena Math14731416
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)36.8%—
MathArena Final-Answer Competitions67.1%—
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202593.3%—
ProofBench22.2%—
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)33.4%—
FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1)12.5%—

Knowledge GLM-5.1 leads

GLM-5.1: 54.9 (#50), Solar Pro4: 39.8 (#129)

BenchmarkGLM-5.1Solar Pro4
LMArena Expert14761427
GPQA Diamond89.9%—
SimpleQA Verified34%—

Multilingual GLM-5.1 leads

GLM-5.1: 55.0 (#36), Solar Pro4: 48.7 (#139)

BenchmarkGLM-5.1Solar Pro4
LMArena Non-English14471361
LMArena Chinese15151415
LMArena French14741397
LMArena German14651364
LMArena Japanese14341309
LMArena Korean14181382
LMArena Russian14541360
LMArena Spanish14691401

Instruction Following GLM-5.1 leads

GLM-5.1: 76.3 (#42), Solar Pro4: 72.7 (#132)

BenchmarkGLM-5.1Solar Pro4
LMArena Instruction Following14511377

Long Context GLM-5.1 leads

GLM-5.1: 44.9 (#53), Solar Pro4: 42.1 (#130)

BenchmarkGLM-5.1Solar Pro4
LMArena Longer Query14661381

Writing & Preference GLM-5.1 leads

GLM-5.1: 66.9 (#31), Solar Pro4: 56.5 (#138)

BenchmarkGLM-5.1Solar Pro4
LMArena Text14611386
LMArena Creative Writing14531316
LMArena Multi-Turn14721385
EQ-Bench Creative Writing1592—

Frequently asked questions

Is GLM-5.1 better than Solar Pro4?

GLM-5.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 47.8 to 42.1 on the Noometry Index. Solar Pro4 costs 4.1× less per token, which makes it the better buy when GLM-5.1's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Which is cheaper, GLM-5.1 or Solar Pro4?

Solar Pro4 is cheaper. It lists at $0.30 per million input tokens and $1.20 per million output tokens; GLM-5.1 lists at $1.40 and $4.40.

Is GLM-5.1 or Solar Pro4 better for coding?

GLM-5.1 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 48.7 versus 40.1 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Solar Pro4 does, with 524K tokens against 200K.

How many benchmarks do GLM-5.1 and Solar Pro4 share?

18 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-5.1 has 41 scored results on Noometry and Solar Pro4 has 18.

Related comparisons

Go deeper