GLM-5.1 vs Ling-3.1-flash
Wins 0 of 5 areas
—
Wins 4 of 5 areas
Coding · Agents · Reasoning · Long documents
Ling-3.1-flash is the stronger all-rounder.
Scores updated · 12 tests both models report · How we compare
Where each one wins
Tests won in each of the five 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.
- AgentsCarrying out multi-step tasks on its own02Ling-3.1-flash2 of 2 tests
- ReasoningHard problems that need careful thinking02Ling-3.1-flash2 of 2 tests
- CodingWriting and fixing software01Ling-3.1-flash1 of 1 test
- Long documentsFinding answers in very long texts01Ling-3.1-flash1 of 1 test
- FactsGetting facts right instead of making them up11Even1 each
Coding and long documents 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.
Ling-3.1-flash costs 79% 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 Ling-3.1-flash pulls ahead
Where GLM-5.1 pulls ahead
- Avoids making up answers it doesn't knowAA-Omniscience · Non-hallucination+8points ahead
Every test, side by side
All 12 tests both models report. The winning score is in its model's colour; marks a score checked independently.
AgentsLing-3.1-flash
- Terminal-Bench 4.0Ling-3.1-flash by 31.3233.3+31.3
- GDPValLing-3.1-flash by 25.13156.1+25.1
ReasoningLing-3.1-flash
- CritPtLing-3.1-flash by 13.44.618+13.4
- Humanity's Last ExamLing-3.1-flash by 9.330.139.4+9.3
FactsEven
- AA-Omniscience · Non-hallucinationGLM-5.1 by 870.162.1+8
- AA-Omniscience · AccuracyLing-3.1-flash by 5.423.729.1+5.4
Other results4 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.
- CyberGymLing-3.1-flash by 19.268.787.9+19.2
- AA IntelligenceLing-3.1-flash by 1526.141.1+15
- Finance Agent v2Ling-3.1-flash by 13.144.857.9+13.1
- AA-OmniscienceLing-3.1-flash by 1.30.82.2+1.3
Questions people ask
Which is better, GLM-5.1 or Ling-3.1-flash?
Ling-3.1-flash wins four of the five areas where both have results: coding, agents, reasoning and long documents. GLM-5.1 wins none. They are level on facts.
Which is better for coding?
Ling-3.1-flash. It wins the one coding test both models report.
Which is cheaper?
GLM-5.1 costs $1.38 per million input tokens and $4.40 per million output tokens; Ling-3.1-flash costs $0.30 and $0.90. That makes Ling-3.1-flash about 79% cheaper for the same work.
How do you compare the two?
We use the 12 benchmark tests both models have published scores on. The verdict counts the 8 tests in the eight capability areas, and a gap under one point (ten on rating-style scales) counts as a tie. The other 4 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.