GoogleGemini 2.5 ProVSZ.ai (Zhipu AI)GLM-5.1
Our Take
While these models specialize in different coding tasks: Gemini 2.5 Pro is suited for multi-file code and clearly defined tasks, while GLM-5.1 excels at complex codebases, multi-file repositories, and architectural planning, they share very similar reasoning capabilities. GLM-5.1 is the smarter buy here as it offers the same level of performance while being 1.6x cheaper than Gemini 2.5 Pro.
▶WHY?
Benchmark Calculations & Evidence:
Coding Evaluation: Gemini 2.5 Pro was evaluated on SWE-bench Verified (scoring 59.6%), while GLM-5.1 was evaluated on SWE-bench Pro (scoring 58.4%).
Reasoning Accuracy: Both models were evaluated on the GPQA Diamond benchmark. Gemini 2.5 Pro scored 84.4%, while GLM-5.1 scored 86.2%.
Cost Ratio: Gemini 2.5 Pro blended CPM is 1.6x higher than GLM-5.1.
Was this recommendation helpful?
Benchmarks & Scores
Coding (swe-bench-verified)
59.6%multi-file code and clearly defined tasks
Reasoning (gpqa-diamond)
84.4%graduate-level science QA
Cost & Context
Cost (per 1M tokens)
$3.44Input: $1.25 | Output: $10.00Context WindowLarger
1.05M tokensBenchmarks & Scores
Coding (swe-bench-pro)
58.4%complex codebases, multi-file repositories, and architectural planning
Reasoning (gpqa-diamond)Winner (+1.8%)
86.2%graduate-level science QA
Cost & Context
Cost (per 1M tokens)1.6x cheaper
$2.15Input: $1.40 | Output: $4.40Context Window
202.75k tokensFrequently Asked Questions about Gemini 2.5 Pro vs GLM-5.1
GLM-5.1 is cheaper than Gemini 2.5 Pro. GLM-5.1 has a blended cost of $2.15/1M tokens, which is about 1.6x cheaper than Gemini 2.5 Pro at $3.44/1M tokens.
For coding tasks, Gemini 2.5 Pro scores 59.6% on swe-bench-verified (multi-file code and clearly defined tasks), while GLM-5.1 scores 58.4% on swe-bench-pro (complex codebases, multi-file repositories, and architectural planning).
Related Matchups
Explore similar comparisons for Gemini 2.5 Pro and GLM-5.1.
Do you want to find a model for your constraints?
Use our interactive model finder to filter LLMs by reasoning capability, coding performance, cost, and context length.