GLM 5.3 vs GPT-6.1 Sol
GLM 5.3 
GPT-6.1 Sol Verdict
- GPT-6.1 Sol (max) leads on quality: 69.3 vs 64.0.
- GLM 5.3 (max) is stronger in composite.
- GPT-6.1 Sol (max) is stronger in agents & tools, coding, human preference, knowledge, long context, maths, reasoning, multimodal.
- GLM 5.3 (max) is 1.9× cheaper ($2.15 vs $4.00 per 1M blended).
- GLM 5.3 (max) streams 1.5× faster (83 vs 56 tokens per second).
| Metric | GLM 5.3 (max) | GPT-6.1 Sol (max) |
|---|---|---|
| BenchLeader Index | 64.0 | 69.3 |
| Agents & tools score | 61.3 | 63.9 |
| Coding score | 62.1 | 72.4 |
| Composite score | 80.3 | 79.0 |
| Human preference score | 67.4 | 68.1 |
| Knowledge score | 58.7 | 78.8 |
| Long context score | 65.0 | 66.8 |
| Maths score | 60.7 | 72.5 |
| Reasoning score | 68.9 | 76.4 |
| Multimodal score | – | 66.2 |
| Blended price $/M | $2.15 | $4.00 |
| Output speed | 83 tok/s | 56 tok/s |
| Time to first answer | 26.5 s | 326.9 s |
| Context window | 1M | 1.1M |
| GPQA Diamond | 90.9% | 95.4% |
| FrontierMath Tiers 1–3 | 68.8% | 93.7% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 29.3% | 100.0% |
| OTIS Mock AIME | 91.1% | 100.0% |
| SimpleQA Verified | 41.0% | 73.9% |
| Terminal-Bench | 41.8% | 58.2% |
| SciCode | 59.0% | 54.2% |
| WeirdML | 75.4% | – |
| APEX-Agents | – | 60.0% |
| FrontierCode | 40.1% | – |
| ProofBench | 49.0% | – |
| LMArena Text | 1478 | 1484 |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1504 | 1507 |
| LMArena Coding | 1520 | 1545 |
| LMArena WebDev | 1622 | 1755 |
| LMArena Vision | – | 1288 |
| LMArena Agent | 2.1 | 11.7 |
| LiveBench | – | 81.6% |
| LiveBench Reasoning | – | 92.6% |
| LiveBench Coding | – | 80.4% |
| LiveBench Agentic Coding | – | 54.5% |
| LiveBench Mathematics | – | 96.8% |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | – | 82.7% |
| LiveBench Language | – | 90.1% |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | – | 74.2% |
| AA Intelligence Index v4.3.2 | 44.8 | 51.8 |
| AA-LCR | 79.7% | 83.0% |
| MMMU-Pro | – | 86.0% |
| AA-Omniscience | 14.3 | 41.5 |
| GPQA Diamond (AA) | 91.7% | – |
| Humanity's Last Exam (AA) | 42.3% | 52.9% |
| SciCode (AA) | 59.0% | 54.2% |
| LiveCodeBench | 80.5% | – |
| MMLU-Pro | 86.8% | – |
| IOI | 68.4% | 96.9% |
| LegalBench | 84.8% | – |
| TaxEval | 72.4% | – |
| Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals) | 71.5% | – |
| SWE-bench (Vals) | 95.4% | – |
| GPQA Diamond (Vals) | 88.1% | – |
| Vals Index | 53.5 | 61.1 |
| ARC-AGI-1 | – | 96.5% |
| ARC-AGI-2 | – | 94.2% |
| ARC-AGI-3 | – | 96.2% |
| CritPt | 19.1% | 31.7% |
| GDPval-AA v2.1 | 57.5% | 53.8% |
| τ³-Banking (AA) | 50.3% | – |
| ITBench SRE (AA) | 46.1% | – |
| Analyst Agent (AA) | – | 50.0% |
| BioMysteryBench | – | 79.6% |
| Code Migration | 44.2% | 65.1% |
| CyberBench | 72.1% | 39.3% |
| Excel Modeling Benchmark | 56.3% | 70.8% |
| Finance Agent v2 | 55.8% | 52.0% |
| Harvey's Legal Agent Benchmark | 8.3% | 5.4% |
| Legal Research Bench | 49.0% | 38.5% |
| MedCode | 42.9% | 48.8% |
| MedScribe | 88.8% | 86.5% |
| MysteryMechanism | 23.0% | 46.4% |
| ProgramBench | 1.5% | – |
| Public Benefits Bench | 68.5% | 59.3% |
| SAGE | – | 46.5% |
| SkillsBench | 47.5% | – |
| SREBench | – | 50.8% |
| Tax Agent Bench | 73.1% | 62.3% |
| Terminal-Bench 4.0 (Vals) | 38.9% | 55.0% |
| Terminal-Bench Science | 4.3% | – |
| Vibe Code Bench 1-100 | 20.0% | – |
| Vibe Code Bench v1.1 | 78.1% | 88.9% |
| FORTRESS | 28.2% | – |
| LMArena Maths | 1492 | 1488 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1454 | 1462 |
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1475 | 1488 |
| LMArena Multi-turn | 1481 | 1487 |
| LMArena Longer Queries | 1485 | 1496 |
| Chess Puzzles | 21.0% | 61.0% |
| EBR-bench | – | 54.3% |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 33.0% | 80.0% |
| DeepSWE v1.1 | 69.0% | – |
| CursorBench | 42.6% | – |
| FrontierSWE | 30.2% | – |
| Terminal-Bench 4.0 (AA) | 41.9% | 56.1% |
| Terminal-Bench 2.1 (AA) | 83.9% | – |
| AutomationBench | 62.2% | 64.9% |
| GDP.pdf | 11.2% | 31.0% |
| MLCR | 48.3% | 33.9% |
| Harvey LAB | 0.3% | 6.9% |
| EnterpriseOps-Gym | 36.4% | – |
| AA-Omniscience: accuracy | 33.9% | 62.1% |
| AA-Omniscience: non-hallucination | 70.5% | 45.7% |
| AA-Briefcase v1.1 | 1509 | 1557 |
| AA Openness Index | 33.3 | – |
Data as of 2026-10-11. Best configuration of each model; every score links to its source on the model pages.
GLM 5.3 vs GPT-6.1 Sol: questions
- Is GLM 5.3 better than GPT-6.1 Sol?
- GPT-6.1 Sol (max) leads on quality: 69.3 vs 64.0. The BenchLeader Index combines every independent quality benchmark; GPT-6.1 Sol (max) is ahead overall as of 2026-10-11, but check the category scores for your use.
- Is GLM 5.3 better than GPT-6.1 Sol for coding?
- GPT-6.1 Sol scores higher in coding (72 vs 62 on the category index, where 50 is average).
- Is GLM 5.3 better than GPT-6.1 Sol for agentic tasks?
- GPT-6.1 Sol scores higher in agentic tasks (64 vs 61 on the category index, where 50 is average).
- Which is cheaper, GLM 5.3 or GPT-6.1 Sol?
- GLM 5.3 is cheaper: $2.15 against $4.00 per million tokens, blended at three input tokens per output token.
- Which is faster, GLM 5.3 or GPT-6.1 Sol?
- GLM 5.3 streams faster: 83 against 56 output tokens per second.
- Which has the larger context window?
- GPT-6.1 Sol accepts more context: 1.1M against 1M tokens.