GPT-5.1-Codex vs GLM 5.3 FlashX Legal: which should you choose in 2026?
GPT-5.1-Codex (by OpenAI) and GLM 5.3 FlashX Legal (by Z.AI) are compared below. Here is how they stack up on benchmarks, price, and capabilities, and which one to pick in 2026.
There are not enough shared, protocol-compatible benchmark results to declare a performance leader.
GLM 5.3 FlashX Legal is about 5.8× cheaper on a blended 3:1 input/output basis ($0.59 vs $3.44 per 1M tokens).
GLM 5.3 FlashX Legal has the larger context window (1,048,576 tokens vs 400,000 tokens).
Choose GPT-5.1-Codex if…
- • your own prompt tests favor its output; shared comparable evidence does not identify a unique advantage
Choose GLM 5.3 FlashX Legal if…
- • lower blended API cost matters for your workload
- • you work with longer documents, transcripts, or codebases
The benchmark count includes only results measured with a matching benchmark version and protocol. Arena scores are shown separately. Missing, preliminary, and incompatible data is not treated as a controlled win. Published point-score comparisons are labeled separately when protocol details are incomplete. For text-output models, the verdict also compares token pricing and context windows.
Performance benchmarks
Every value links to its source. A dash means that no reviewed result is available for that exact model and protocol.
| Benchmark | GPT-5.1-Codex | GLM 5.3 FlashX Legal |
|---|---|---|
A 657-task benchmark of multi-step work across simulated SaaS applications in six business domains. The Artificial Analysis protocol reports a guardrail-aware score and is distinct from both the public Zapier split and the unrelated dynamic AutoBench framework. Guardrail-aware score | — | — |
A benchmark of difficult, verifiable information-seeking questions designed to measure an agent's ability to locate hard-to-find facts through web browsing. Accuracy | — | — |
A verified computer-use benchmark in which multimodal agents operate desktop applications and are graded from the resulting environment state. Mean task reward | — | — |
A human-validated subset of real GitHub issues used to measure whether a coding agent can produce repository patches that resolve the associated tests. Resolved | 66.0% SWE-bench | — |
Version 2.1 of the benchmark for completing realistic tasks in terminal environments. Harness, resource limits, and attempt count are part of the protocol. Mean task success | — | — |
A dynamic LLM evaluation framework in which models generate questions, answer them, and participate in reciprocal peer assessment. AutoBench is distinct from Zapier's AutomationBench. Weighted peer-assessment score | — | — |
The highest-quality subset of Graduate-Level Google-Proof Q&A, designed to test expert-level scientific reasoning in biology, physics, and chemistry. Accuracy | — | — |
A 2,500-question expert-level benchmark spanning dozens of academic fields. Tool-assisted and no-tools results are separate protocols and must not be merged. Accuracy | — | — |
| Arena preference scores | ||
Human preference score for code and web development | 1337 ±12 | — |
Benchmark sources
Reviewed evidence last updated 2026-08-09. Arena data last refreshed Oct 5, 2026.
Pricing, capabilities, and model facts
| Feature | GPT-5.1-Codex | GLM 5.3 FlashX Legal |
|---|---|---|
| Context & model facts | ||
| Developer | OpenAI | Z.AI |
| API provider | OpenAI | Z.ai |
| Input context | 400,000 tokens | 1,048,576 tokens |
| Maximum output | 128,000 tokens | 131,072 tokens |
| Released | — | — |
| Added to Writingmate | Nov 13, 2025 | Nov 2, 2026 |
| License | Not available | Not available |
| Knowledge cutoff | — | — |
| Capabilities | ||
| Inputs | Text, Image | Text, Image, Video |
| Outputs | Text | Text |
| Provider endpoint accepts tool parameters | Yes | Yes |
| Reasoning | Yes | Yes |
| Vision | Yes | Yes |
| Image Generation | No | No |
| Video Generation | No | No |
| API pricing | ||
| Input (per 1M tokens) | $1.25 | $0.37 |
| Output (per 1M tokens) | $10.00 | $1.25 |
| Blended 3:1 input/output | $3.44 | $0.59 |
| API performance | ||
| p95 latency | Not measured | Not measured |
| Output throughput | Not measured | Not measured |
| Writingmate shows API performance only when both models have enough observations from the same measurement window, prompt profile, and provider. Third-party latency values are not copied into this table. | ||
Data sources
- Writingmate model catalog (pricing, limits, and availability)
Catalog data last updated Nov 2, 2026.
Why Pay for Multiple Subscriptions?
Comparing GPT-5.1-Codex from OpenAI with GLM 5.3 FlashX Legal from Z.AI? Instead of managing separate API keys and subscriptions, get both with Writingmate.
| Plan | Price | GPT-5.1-Codex | GLM 5.3 FlashX Legal | AI Images | AI Video |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Writingmate Pro Most popular | $20/mo | Included | Included | Nano Banana Pro, FLUX.2, DALL-E & more | VEO 3.1, Kling 3.0 |
Writingmate Ultimate Power users | $60/mo | Included | Included | Nano Banana Pro, FLUX.2, DALL-E & more | VEO 3.1, Kling 3.0 |
GPT-5.1-Codex vs GLM 5.3 FlashX Legal FAQ
Which is better, GPT-5.1-Codex or GLM 5.3 FlashX Legal?
There are not enough shared, protocol-compatible benchmark results to declare a performance leader. GLM 5.3 FlashX Legal is about 5.8× cheaper on a blended 3:1 input/output basis ($0.59 vs $3.44 per 1M tokens). GLM 5.3 FlashX Legal has the larger context window (1,048,576 tokens vs 400,000 tokens).
Which model is cheaper to use through an API?
GLM 5.3 FlashX Legal is about 5.8× cheaper on a blended 3:1 input/output basis ($0.59 vs $3.44 per 1M tokens).
Which model supports more context?
GLM 5.3 FlashX Legal has the larger context window (1,048,576 tokens vs 400,000 tokens).
Can I switch between GPT-5.1-Codex and GLM 5.3 FlashX Legal?
Yes. Use the model selector on this page to open any current Writingmate model comparison. You can also run the same prompt with both models in Writingmate.
Related comparisons
More GPT-5.1-Codex comparisons
Kimi K2.7 Code
Moonshot AI
MoonshotAI: Kimi K2.7 Code is a coding-focused model in Moonshot AI's Kimi K2 family, built to complete end-to-end programming tasks reliably over long contexts.
Gemini 4 Carbon
Gemini 4 Carbon is a frontier Gemini 4 model from Google for coding, agentic and complex reasoning work.
Nex-N2.6
Nex AGI
Nex-N2.6 is an agentic model from Nex AGI, built on GLM-5.3-Flash with about 321B parameters.
Particle-1
Particle ai
Particle-1 is a token-efficient agentic coding model from Particle AI, post-trained on DeepSeek V4.1 Flash.
More GLM 5.3 FlashX Legal comparisons
Gemini 4 Carbon
Gemini 4 Carbon is a frontier Gemini 4 model from Google for coding, agentic and complex reasoning work.
Muse Ember
Meta
Muse Ember is a model by Meta.
Kimi K3.1 Pro
Moonshot AI
Kimi K3.1 Pro is Moonshot AI's flagship open-weight multimodal reasoning model and a post-trained successor to Kimi K3, with a 1M-token context window.
MiniMax M3.1 Flash
MiniMax
MiniMax-M3.1-Flash is a multimodal model from MiniMax.
Glimpse
Elorian
Glimpse is a multimodal visual reasoning model from Elorian, built for visual understanding and complex visual reasoning in the physical world.
Muse Spark Open
Meta
Muse Spark Open is a coding-optimized open-weight model.