Skip to content

o1 vs GLM 5

o1

OpenAI

74#133
vs
GLM 5

Zhipu AI

78#109
Signal-by-Signal Comparison
Signalo1DeltaGLM 5
Capabilities
100
+33
67
Benchmarks
77
-4
81
Pricing
40
-58
98
Context window size
84
0
84
Recency
18
-76
94
Output Capacity
80
-2
82
Overall Result
1 wins
of 6
5 wins
GLM 5 wins 5 of 6 signals

Score History

Score History (30 data points)
o1GLM 5
o1

74.4

current score

Leader

GLM 5

right now

GLM 5

78

current score

LMMarketCap.com
Interactive Price Comparison
100Kcalls/month
1,000tokens (~1,333 chars)
500tokens (~667 chars)

o1

OpenAI

Per request$0.045000
Daily$150.00
Monthly$4500.00
Annual$54000.00

GLM 5

Zhipu AI

Best Value
Per request$0.001560
Daily$5.20
Monthly$156.00
Annual$1872.00

GLM 5 saves you $4344.00/month

That's $52128.00/year compared to o1 at your current usage level of 100K calls/month.

97% cheaper
Choose GLM 5 for cost optimization

o1 pricing:
Input:$15.00/M tokens
Output:$60.00/M tokens
GLM 5 pricing:
Input:$0.60/M tokens
Output:$1.92/M tokens
o1

OpenAI

74

Composite Score

Winner
GLM 5

Zhipu AI

78

Composite Score

Signal-by-Signal Comparison
Metrico1GLM 5Winner
Overall Score
74
78
GLM 5
Rank#133#109
GLM 5
Quality Rank#133#109
GLM 5
Adoption Rank#133#109
GLM 5
Parameters------
Context Window200K205K
GLM 5
Pricing$15.00/$60.00/M$0.60/$1.92/M--
Signal Scores
Capabilities
100
67
o1
Benchmarks
77
81
GLM 5
Pricing
40
98
GLM 5
Context window size
84
84
GLM 5
Recency
18
94
GLM 5
Output Capacity
80
82
GLM 5
Benchmark Head-to-Head(12 benchmarks)
o1: 0GLM 5: 2
o1
GLM 5
Normalized 0-100%
MMLU
91.8%-
MMLU-Pro
80.3%86%
GPQA Diamond
78%-
MATH-500
96.4%-
HumanEval
92.4%-
SWE-bench Verified
48.9%-
AIME 2024
83.3%-
IFEval
86.5%-
BBH
89%-
Arena Elo
13501458
HLE
8.12%-
BigCodeBench
32.4%-
Benchmark Interpretation

Our score (0-100) is driven by benchmark performance (90%) from Arena Elo ratings, MMLU, GPQA, HumanEval, SWE-bench, and 15+ standardized evaluations. Capabilities and context window serve as tiebreakers (10%). Learn more about our methodology.

o1Strong Performer

Scores 74/100 (rank #133), placing it in the top 54% of all 290 models tracked.

Raw Quality0/100
Cost Efficiency0/100
Speed0/100
GLM 5Strong Performer

Scores 78/100 (rank #109), placing it in the top 63% of all 290 models tracked.

Raw Quality0/100
Cost Efficiency0/100
Speed0/100

With only a 4-point gap, these models are in the same performance tier. The practical difference in output quality is minimal - your choice should depend on pricing, latency requirements, and specific feature needs.

When to Use Each Model

Choose o1 when you need:

  • Multimodal workflows that require image understanding
  • Step-by-step reasoning and chain-of-thought problem solving

Choose GLM 5 when you need:

  • High-volume production workloads where API costs must be minimized
  • Step-by-step reasoning and chain-of-thought problem solving
  • Self-hosted deployments where you need full control over the model
Cost-Performance Analysis
o1
Input cost$15.00/M tokens
Output cost$60.00/M tokens
Cost per quality point$1.008
Est. monthly (1M tokens/day)$1125.00
GLM 5Best Value
Input cost$0.60/M tokens
Output cost$1.92/M tokens
Cost per quality point$0.032
Est. monthly (1M tokens/day)$37.80

GLM 5 offers 97% better value per quality point. At 1M tokens/day, you'd spend $37.80/month with GLM 5 vs $1125.00/month with o1 - a $1087.20 monthly difference.

Latency & Speed
o1Faster
Speed score0/100
GLM 5
Speed score0/100

Both models have comparable response speeds. For most applications, the latency difference is negligible.

When latency matters most: Interactive chatbots, IDE code completion, real-time translation, and user-facing applications where response time directly impacts experience. For batch processing, background summarization, or offline analysis, latency is less critical.

Example Use Cases

Code generation & review

Based on overall model capabilities and architecture for coding tasks like generating functions, debugging, and refactoring

o1

Customer support chatbot

Suitable for user-facing chat with competitive response times. GLM 5 also offers lower per-token costs for high-volume support

o1

Long document analysis

Larger context window (205K tokens) can process longer documents, contracts, and research papers in a single pass

GLM 5

Batch data extraction

Lower output pricing ($1.92/M) reduces costs when processing thousands of records daily

GLM 5

Creative writing & content

Higher overall composite score (78/100) correlates with better nuance, coherence, and style in long-form content

GLM 5

Image understanding & OCR

Supports vision input - can analyze screenshots, diagrams, photos, and scanned documents directly

o1
Which Should You Choose?
Our recommendation:
GLM 5

GLM 5 has a moderate advantage with a 3.5999999999999943-point lead in composite score. It wins on more signal dimensions, but o1 has specific strengths that could make it the better choice for certain workflows.

by OpenAI

  • Choose for Quality - Marginally better benchmark scores; both are excellent
  • Choose for Reliability - Higher uptime and faster response speeds
  • Choose for Prototyping - Stronger community support and better developer experience
  • Choose for Production - Wider enterprise adoption and proven at scale
GLM 5
Recommended

by Zhipu AI

  • Choose for Cost - 97% lower pricing; better value at scale
Capability Comparison
Capabilityo1GLM 5
Vision (Image Input)differs
Function Calling
Streaming
JSON Mode
Reasoning
Web Searchdiffers
Image Output
Monthly Cost Calculator
1,000tokens (600 in / 400 out)
100requests/day (3,000/month)

o1

OpenAI

$99.00
estimated monthly cost

GLM 5

Zhipu AI

Best Value
$3.38
estimated monthly cost

GLM 5 saves you $95.62/month

That's 97% cheaper than o1 at 1,000 tokens/request and 100 requests/day.

Assumes 60% input / 40% output token ratio per request. Actual costs may vary based on your usage pattern.

Parameters & Context
Parametero1GLM 5
Context Window200K205K
Max Output Tokens100,000128,000
Open SourceNoYes
CreatedDec 17, 2024Feb 11, 2026
Last updated: 56m ago

Related comparisons

o1 vs GLM 5 (2026) | LM Market Cap