xAIGrok 4.20VSZ.ai (Zhipu AI)GLM-5.1
Our Take
We recommend GLM-5.1 for a 1.4x API cost saving and superior coding capability, or Grok 4.20 if your workflow requires peak reasoning. While GLM-5.1 is more cost-effective, Grok 4.20 holds a clear reasoning advantage. Choose GLM-5.1 for code generation, or Grok 4.20 for complex logical reasoning.
▶WHY?
Benchmark Calculations & Evidence:
Coding Benchmarks: Both models were evaluated on the SWE-bench Pro benchmark. Grok 4.20 scored 51.8%, while GLM-5.1 scored 58.4%.
Reasoning Benchmarks: Both models were evaluated on the GPQA Diamond benchmark. Grok 4.20 scored 90%, while GLM-5.1 scored 86.2%.
Cost Efficiency: Grok 4.20 pricing ($2/M input, $6/M output) is 1.4x cheaper than GLM-5.1 ($1.4/M input, $4.4/M output).
Was this recommendation helpful?
Benchmarks & Scores
Coding (swe-bench-pro)
51.8%complex codebases, multi-file repositories, and architectural planning
Reasoning (gpqa-diamond)Winner (+3.8%)
90%graduate-level science QA
Cost & Context
Cost (per 1M tokens)
$3.00Input: $2.00 | Output: $6.00Context WindowLarger
1.05M tokensBenchmarks & Scores
Coding (swe-bench-pro)Winner (+6.6%)
58.4%complex codebases, multi-file repositories, and architectural planning
Reasoning (gpqa-diamond)
86.2%graduate-level science QA
Cost & Context
Cost (per 1M tokens)1.4x cheaper
$2.15Input: $1.40 | Output: $4.40Context Window
202.75k tokensFrequently Asked Questions about Grok 4.20 vs GLM-5.1
GLM-5.1 is cheaper than Grok 4.20. GLM-5.1 has a blended cost of $2.15/1M tokens, which is about 1.4x cheaper than Grok 4.20 at $3.00/1M tokens.
GLM-5.1 is better for coding tasks on this benchmark. It scores 58.4% on swe-bench-pro (complex codebases, multi-file repositories, and architectural planning) compared to Grok 4.20 which scores 51.8%.
Related Matchups
Explore similar comparisons for Grok 4.20 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.