Compare/GLM-5.1 vs Meta Llama 4

AI tool comparison

GLM-5.1 vs Meta Llama 4

Which one should you ship with? Here is the side-by-side panel verdict, pricing read, reviewer split, and community vote comparison.

G

Language Models

GLM-5.1

Open-weight #1 on SWE-bench Pro — built with zero Nvidia GPUs

Ship

100%

Panel ship

Community

Paid

Entry

GLM-5.1 is a 744B Mixture-of-Experts model from Z.ai (formerly Zhipu AI) that achieved 58.4% on SWE-bench Pro—making it the first open-weight model to top the global coding benchmark leaderboard, edging out GPT-5.4 (57.7%) and Claude Opus 4.6 (57.3%). Available on HuggingFace under the MIT license, it's one of the most permissively licensed frontier-grade coding models that exists. The model runs with 40B active parameters despite its 744B total size, offers a 200K context window, and was refined specifically for coding and agentic tasks through reinforcement learning. The training story is remarkable: Z.ai has been on the US Entity List since January 2025, cutting off access to Nvidia data center GPUs entirely. The entire GLM-5 training run used approximately 100,000 Huawei Ascend 910B chips. For open-source practitioners, GLM-5.1 is a landmark: a frontier-class coding model with MIT weights and benchmark numbers that would have seemed impossible from a China-sanctioned lab a year ago. The hardware independence angle raises pointed questions about chip export control effectiveness—and suggests the Ascend 910B has become a genuinely competitive training platform at massive scale.

M

AI Models

Meta Llama 4

Open-weight multimodal MoE models with 10M context — free to run

Ship

100%

Panel ship

Community

Free

Entry

Meta released Llama 4 Scout and Llama 4 Maverick on April 5, 2026 — the first open-weight natively multimodal models built with a Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) architecture. Scout is a 17B active parameter model with 16 experts that fits on a single NVIDIA H100, with an industry-leading 10 million token context window. Maverick is also 17B active parameters but with 128 experts, delivering performance that benchmarks comparably to GPT-4o and DeepSeek v3 on reasoning and coding tasks. Both models process text, images, and video inputs, and are freely available for download on Hugging Face and llama.com. Llama 4 Scout was trained on 40 trillion tokens of data. The MoE architecture means the models punch well above their weight in active parameter count — Scout competes with models 5-10x its size on many benchmarks, while keeping inference costs low. This release closes the gap between open and proprietary models significantly. Organizations that previously needed to pay for GPT-4o or Claude for multimodal tasks can now run comparable capability locally or via any cloud provider. For the open-source AI ecosystem, Llama 4 is the biggest release of 2026 so far.

Decision
GLM-5.1
Meta Llama 4
Panel verdict
Ship · 4 ship / 0 skip
Ship · 4 ship / 0 skip
Community
No community votes yet
No community votes yet
Pricing
Open Source (MIT)
Free / Open Weight (Meta Llama 4 Community License)
Best for
Open-weight #1 on SWE-bench Pro — built with zero Nvidia GPUs
Open-weight multimodal MoE models with 10M context — free to run
Category
Language Models
AI Models

Reviewer scorecard

Builder
80/100 · ship

The primitive here is a frontier-grade, MIT-licensed MoE coding model you can self-host — 40B active params at inference time despite 744B total weights, 200K context, no usage restrictions, no API keys before hello-world. The DX bet is correct: by releasing on HuggingFace under MIT, Z.ai put the complexity where it belongs — in your infra choices, not their licensing desk. SWE-bench Pro at 58.4% isn't a marketing claim; it's the same eval that humbled GPT-5 and Opus 4, and if you're running code agents in production today, the absence of a closed-API dependency is worth more than a 1% benchmark gap in either direction.

80/100 · ship

A multimodal MoE model that fits on a single H100 and handles 10M context is insane for the price of free. Scout is the model I'll be running for 80% of production workloads going forward — the economics versus GPT-4o or Claude don't even compare. Deploy it now.

Skeptic
80/100 · ship

Direct competitors are GPT-5 and Claude Opus 4 via API — both closed, both more expensive to run at scale, both with usage policies that can yank access. GLM-5.1 breaks at the infrastructure layer: you need serious hardware to serve 744B MoE at any latency that matters for interactive coding agents, and most teams don't have that. But the benchmark numbers are independently verifiable, the MIT license is unambiguous, and the Ascend 910B training story isn't PR spin — it's a geopolitical datapoint with real implications. What kills this in 12 months isn't a competitor; it's that cloud providers will offer managed endpoints and the 'open weights' story becomes theoretical for 90% of users. That said, the weights are real and the numbers are real, so: ship.

80/100 · ship

I'll still reach for frontier proprietary models for the hardest reasoning tasks and production-critical applications where errors are costly. But I can't deny that Llama 4 Scout closes the gap more than I expected. The 10M context on Scout is genuinely unprecedented for open weights.

Futurist
80/100 · ship

The thesis this model bets on: chip export controls do not prevent frontier-class model training, and open-weight frontier models will become the infrastructure layer for commercial software development within 24 months. Both claims are now empirically stronger because of this release — 100,000 Ascend 910Bs producing a SWE-bench leader is the single most important data point on export control effectiveness since the controls were imposed. The second-order effect is the one that matters: if Huawei's Ascend stack is a credible frontier-training platform at scale, the assumption that Nvidia controls the ceiling of what's possible outside the US just broke. The open-weights + MIT license trend is on-time, not early — but GLM-5.1 is the first model to make that trend undeniable at coding-benchmark-frontier quality.

80/100 · ship

Llama 4 will commoditize multimodal AI the same way Llama 2 commoditized text generation. The 10M context window in an open-weight model is a civilizational-level unlock for researchers, non-profits, and countries that can't afford to depend on US cloud providers for advanced AI.

Founder
80/100 · ship

The buyer for self-hosted GLM-5.1 is any team spending five figures monthly on closed coding-model APIs who also has compliance requirements that prohibit data leaving their infra — a real and growing cohort. Z.ai's actual moat isn't the weights (MIT means anyone can fine-tune and redistribute); it's that they've now proven they can train at this level without Nvidia, which means they're not blocked from the next iteration while US-sanctioned labs sit in hardware purgatory. The business risk is that MIT licensing is a distribution play, not a revenue play — Z.ai needs to convert open-weight credibility into enterprise API or cloud contracts fast, before the weights become a commodity that funds their competitors' fine-tunes.

No panel take
Creator
No panel take
80/100 · ship

An open-weight model that understands images and video means I can build custom creative pipelines without routing everything through proprietary APIs. For studios, agencies, and indie creators, Llama 4 fundamentally changes the cost structure of AI-assisted production.

Weekly AI Tool Verdicts

Get the next comparison in your inbox

New AI tools ship daily. We compare them before you waste an afternoon.

Bookmarks

Loading bookmarks...

No bookmarks yet

Bookmark tools to save them for later