AI tool comparison
GLM-5.1 vs GLM-5.1
Which one should you ship with? Here is the side-by-side panel verdict, pricing read, reviewer split, and community vote comparison.
AI Models
GLM-5.1
First open-source model to top SWE-bench Pro — 744B MoE, MIT, zero Nvidia
50%
Panel ship
—
Community
Paid
Entry
GLM-5.1 is Z.ai's (formerly Zhipu AI) open-weight model released April 7, 2026 under the MIT license. It's a 744-billion-parameter Mixture-of-Experts architecture with 40 billion active parameters per token, a 200K-token context window, and a 131K maximum output length — and it became the first open-source model ever to lead SWE-bench Pro, scoring 58.4% versus Claude Opus 4.6's 57.3%. The training story is almost as remarkable as the performance. GLM-5.1 was trained entirely on approximately 100,000 Huawei Ascend 910B chips using the MindSpore framework — no Nvidia hardware was used at any point. That makes it one of the first frontier-tier models to demonstrate that the CUDA monoculture isn't technically mandatory for training state-of-the-art models. Z.ai became the first publicly traded foundation model company via a Hong Kong IPO in January 2026 (~$558M raised). The model is free to download from HuggingFace and also available via API at $0.95 per million input tokens. In agentic demonstrations, it has run autonomously for eight hours straight — 655 planning and execution iterations — without human checkpoints.
AI Models
GLM-5.1
#1 on SWE-Bench Pro — Zhipu's open 754B MoE beats GPT-5 on coding
50%
Panel ship
—
Community
Paid
Entry
Z.ai (formerly Zhipu AI) has released GLM-5.1, a 754B-parameter Mixture-of-Experts model that's currently sitting at #1 on SWE-Bench Pro with a score of 58.4 — outperforming GPT-5.4 and Claude Opus 4.6 on long-horizon software engineering tasks. The model ships under MIT license with full weights on HuggingFace. GLM-5.1 was specifically designed for agentic software engineering workflows: multi-file reasoning, autonomous test-run-fix loops, and extended coding sessions that span hundreds of tool calls. It's not just a capability leap — at 754B active parameters via sparse MoE, it can be run more efficiently than a dense model of equivalent capability on a sufficiently provisioned cluster. The SWE-Bench Pro result is significant because that benchmark is harder to game than vanilla SWE-Bench Verified. It tests whether a model can resolve real GitHub issues with correct tests, proper diffs, and no regressions — the things that actually matter in production. For anyone running self-hosted coding agents or building on open models, GLM-5.1 just became the new baseline to beat.
Reviewer scorecard
“MIT license, top SWE-bench Pro score, $0.95/M via API. If your use case is agentic coding and you're not evaluating GLM-5.1, you're leaving real performance on the table. The 8-hour autonomous run capability is compelling for long-horizon task pipelines.”
“If the SWE-Bench Pro numbers hold up under independent replication, this is the first open model that can genuinely replace a proprietary API for serious agentic coding work. MIT license means you can fine-tune and deploy on your own infra. This is a big deal.”
“SWE-bench Pro is one benchmark. The broader coding composite (Terminal-Bench 2.0 + NL2Repo) still has Claude Opus 4.6 ahead at 57.5 vs GLM-5.1's 54.9. Running 744B locally requires hardware most teams don't own, and the API's Chinese jurisdiction will trigger compliance blockers for many organizations.”
“754B parameters is not something 99% of developers can run locally. You need a multi-GPU cluster or serious cloud spend. The benchmark numbers are from Z.ai's own evaluations, and Zhipu has a history of optimistic benchmarking. Wait for independent replications.”
“The Huawei chip training story matters more than the benchmark ranking. If GLM-5.1 proves you can train frontier models without Nvidia at scale, it fractures the GPU supply chain narrative that's been shaping geopolitics and AI policy discussions for years. This is a proof of concept with enormous implications.”
“A Chinese lab shipping an MIT-licensed model that tops global coding benchmarks is a watershed moment for open-source AI. The geopolitical implications are real — this is the model that makes US export controls look strategically shortsighted.”
“For creative workflows, the 744B MoE overhead is overkill and local deployment requires datacenter-grade hardware that's nowhere near indie studio territory. The MIT license is great, but the gap between 'free to download' and 'free to actually run' is vast at this parameter count.”
“Unless you're building coding tools or agent infrastructure, a 754B MoE model doesn't move the needle for creative applications. The energy and infra overhead for creative use cases doesn't pencil out versus smaller, cheaper models.”
Weekly AI Tool Verdicts
Get the next comparison in your inbox
New AI tools ship daily. We compare them before you waste an afternoon.