GLM-5.1 vs Granite 4.2 30B
Wins 4 of 6 areas
Coding · Agents · Reasoning · Long documents
Wins 0 of 6 areas
—
GLM-5.1 is the stronger all-rounder.Granite 4.2 30B is cheaper.
Scores updated · 23 tests both models report · How we compare
Where each one wins
Tests won in each of the six areas where both have results. Each piece is one test, so a longer bar means more evidence; grey means the two scored within a point of each other.
- CodingWriting and fixing software60GLM-5.16 of 6 tests
- ReasoningHard problems that need careful thinking30GLM-5.13 of 3 tests
- AgentsCarrying out multi-step tasks on its own20GLM-5.12 of 3 tests · 1 tie
- Long documentsFinding answers in very long texts10GLM-5.11 of 1 test
- FactsGetting facts right instead of making them up11Even1 each
- Following instructionsDoing exactly what it is asked00Even0 each · 1 tie
Long documents and following instructions rest on a single test each.
What it costs
Prices per million tokens, roughly 750,000 words. The bars show the cost of a million tokens read plus a million written.
Granite 4.2 30B costs 86% less for the same work.
The biggest differences
The tests each model wins by the widest margin, up to three each. Scores are out of 100.
Where GLM-5.1 pulls ahead
- Command-line tasks in a real terminalTerminal-Bench 2.1+35.2points ahead
- Fixes real GitHub issues in many programming languagesSWE-bench Multilingual+31.4points ahead
- Real work tasks from 44 professionsGDPVal+27points ahead
Where Granite 4.2 30B pulls ahead
- Avoids making up answers it doesn't knowAA-Omniscience · Non-hallucination+4.3points ahead
Every test, side by side
All 23 tests both models report. The winning score is in its model's colour; marks a score checked independently.
CodingGLM-5.1
- Terminal-Bench 2.1GLM-5.1 by 35.261.826.6+35.2
- SWE-bench MultilingualGLM-5.1 by 31.473.341.9+31.4
- SWE-bench ProGLM-5.1 by 25.158.433.3+25.1
- SWE-bench VerifiedGLM-5.1 by 19.276.257+19.2
- LiveCodeBench v6GLM-5.1 by 9.985.775.8+9.9
- SciCodeGLM-5.1 by 744.837.8+7
AgentsGLM-5.1
- GDPValGLM-5.1 by 2730.83.8+27
- Terminal-Bench 4.0GLM-5.1 by 220+2
- τ-Bench V3 · Bankingtie13.614.4tie
ReasoningGLM-5.1
- GPQA DiamondGLM-5.1 by 22.486.864.4+22.4
- Humanity's Last ExamGLM-5.1 by 18.930.111.2+18.9
- CritPtGLM-5.1 by 4.34.60.3+4.3
FactsEven
- AA-Omniscience · AccuracyGLM-5.1 by 13.623.710.1+13.6
- AA-Omniscience · Non-hallucinationGranite 4.2 30B by 4.370.174.4+4.3
Other results7 tests, not counted
Tests outside the eight areas. They are not counted above: several are summary scores built from other tests, or the same test under another name.
- Artificial Analysis Coding IndexGLM-5.1 by 25.955.829.9+25.9
- AA-OmniscienceGLM-5.1 by 13.80.8-12.9+13.8
- AA IntelligenceGLM-5.1 by 13.426.112.7+13.4
- AA Agentic IndexGLM-5.1 by 11.325.213.9+11.3
- τ³-BenchGLM-5.1 by 8.670.662+8.6
- MMLU-ProGLM-5.1 by 8.48677.6+8.4
- HMMT 2025GLM-5.1 by 4.89489.2+4.8
Questions people ask
Which is better, GLM-5.1 or Granite 4.2 30B?
GLM-5.1 wins four of the six areas where both have results: coding, agents, reasoning and long documents. Granite 4.2 30B wins none, but costs 86% less. They are level on facts and following instructions.
Which is better for coding?
GLM-5.1. It wins 6 of the 6 coding tests both models report; Granite 4.2 30B wins none.
Which is cheaper?
GLM-5.1 costs $1.38 per million input tokens and $4.40 per million output tokens; Granite 4.2 30B costs $0.16 and $0.65. That makes Granite 4.2 30B about 86% cheaper for the same work.
How do you compare the two?
We use the 23 benchmark tests both models have published scores on. The verdict counts the 16 tests in the eight capability areas, and a gap under one point (ten on rating-style scales) counts as a tie. The other 7 are listed but not counted, because several are summary scores or repeat a test. Each score is the one shown on the model's own page.