GPT-6.1 Sol vs GLM 5V Turbo: which should you choose in 2026?
GPT-6.1 Sol (by OpenAI) and GLM 5V Turbo (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.
At least one model uses context-dependent token-pricing tiers, so the published base rates do not support an unconditional blended price comparison.
GPT-6.1 Sol has the larger context window (1,050,000 tokens vs 202,752 tokens).
Choose GPT-6.1 Sol if…
- • you work with longer documents, transcripts, or codebases
Choose GLM 5V Turbo if…
- • your own prompt tests favor its output; shared comparable evidence does not identify a unique advantage
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-6.1 Sol | GLM 5V Turbo |
|---|---|---|
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 | — | — |
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 | — | 1433 ±6 |
Human preference score for code and web development | — | 1400 ±13 |
Benchmark sources
Reviewed evidence last updated 2026-08-09. Arena data last refreshed Sep 27, 2026.
Pricing, capabilities, and model facts
| Feature | GPT-6.1 Sol | GLM 5V Turbo |
|---|---|---|
| Context & model facts | ||
| Developer | OpenAI | Z.AI |
| API provider | OpenAI | Z.ai |
| Input context | 1,050,000 tokens | 202,752 tokens |
| Maximum output | 128,000 tokens | 131,072 tokens |
| Released | — | — |
| Added to Writingmate | Sep 29, 2026 | Apr 1, 2026 |
| License | Not available | Not available |
| Knowledge cutoff | — | — |
| Capabilities | ||
| Inputs | File, Image, Text | Image, Text, 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 | ||
| Base input (per 1M tokens) | $2.00 | $1.20 |
| Base output (per 1M tokens) | $10.00 | $4.00 |
| Higher-context pricing tiers |
| Base rate only |
| Price-comparison caveat | At least one model changes token rates above a prompt-token threshold. Base rates are shown, but an unconditional blended price ratio would not be like-for-like. | |
| 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 Sep 29, 2026.
Why Pay for Multiple Subscriptions?
Comparing GPT-6.1 Sol from OpenAI with GLM 5V Turbo from Z.AI? Instead of managing separate API keys and subscriptions, get both with Writingmate.
| Plan | Price | GPT-6.1 Sol | GLM 5V Turbo | 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-6.1 Sol vs GLM 5V Turbo FAQ
Which is better, GPT-6.1 Sol or GLM 5V Turbo?
There are not enough shared, protocol-compatible benchmark results to declare a performance leader. At least one model uses context-dependent token-pricing tiers, so the published base rates do not support an unconditional blended price comparison. GPT-6.1 Sol has the larger context window (1,050,000 tokens vs 202,752 tokens).
Which model is cheaper to use through an API?
At least one model uses context-dependent token-pricing tiers, so the published base rates do not support an unconditional blended price comparison.
Which model supports more context?
GPT-6.1 Sol has the larger context window (1,050,000 tokens vs 202,752 tokens).
Can I switch between GPT-6.1 Sol and GLM 5V Turbo?
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-6.1 Sol comparisons
Claude Sonnet 5.5
Anthropic
Claude Sonnet 5.5 is Anthropic's Sonnet-class model for well-scoped everyday work, succeeding Claude Sonnet 5 as a direct upgrade.
Jev Router
Typesafe
Jev Router picks the best model and reasoning effort for each request, balancing quality, speed, and cost.
Claude Opus 5.5
Anthropic
Claude Opus 5.5 is Anthropic's flagship model for demanding reasoning, coding, and long-horizon agentic work, succeeding Claude Opus 5.
Grok 4.7
xAI
Grok 4.7 is SpaceXAI's flagship model for coding, agentic tasks, and knowledge work, succeeding Grok 4.6.
Fugu Ultra v2
Sakana AI
Fugu Ultra v2 is the higher-performance model in Sakana AI's Fugu family.
Fugu Max
Sakana AI
Fugu Max is the cost-performance model in Sakana AI's Fugu family.
More GLM 5V Turbo comparisons
Jev Router
Typesafe
Jev Router picks the best model and reasoning effort for each request, balancing quality, speed, and cost.
Perceptron Mk1.5
Perceptron
Perceptron Mk1.5 is Perceptron's embodied reasoning model for physical agents.
Qwen3.8 Max Prime
Qwen
Qwen3.8 Max Prime is a higher-throughput variant of Qwen3.8 Max from Alibaba's Qwen team, served as a separate SKU at a higher price point.
Space Bunny Alpha
Stealth
Space Bunny Alpha is an anonymous large model with blazing-fast inference, strong coding capabilities and native multimodal input support.
MiMo-V2.6-Pro-UltraSpeed
Xiaomi
MiMo-V2.6-Pro-UltraSpeed is the fast speed edition of Xiaomi's flagship foundation model, MiMo-V2.6-Pro.
MiMo-V2.6-Flash
Xiaomi
MiMo-V2.6-Flash is an open-source foundation model developed by Xiaomi.