GLM-5.1 vs GPT-5.6
Which one, when
glm-5.1 is the cheaper text-only option at $1.4 input and $4.4 output per million tokens, with a 200000-token context and 131072 max output tokens, so it fits high-volume chat, code and tool-calling work where every token counts. gpt-5.6 costs about 3.6x more on input and roughly 6.8x more on output at $5 and $30 per million, but it accepts images alongside text and carries a 1050000-token context, over five times larger. Pick gpt-5.6 when you need vision or very long inputs; otherwise glm-5.1 covers the same reasoning and tools flags for less.
Benchmarks
GLM-5.1: the vendor has not published benchmark scores.
Vendor-published: Alibaba (Qwen) Anthropic ByteDance DeepSeek Google MiniMax Moonshot OpenAI Tencent Z.ai
Pricing
| GLM-5.1 | GPT-5.6 | Δ | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / 1M tokens | $1.4 | $5 | 0.28× |
| Output / 1M tokens | $4.4 | $30 | 0.15× |
| Cache read / 1M tokens | $0.26 | $0.5 | 0.52× |
| Cache write | - | no separate charge | - |
Rates from the live catalogue at build time; each model page carries the current rate card.
Where they sit · input price per 1M tokens across all 76 chat models on this billing unit (log scale)
Capabilities
Specs
| GLM-5.1 | GPT-5.6 | |
|---|---|---|
| Input modalities | text | text image |
| Output modalities | text | text |
| Released | 2026-04-07 | 2026-07-09 |
| Knowledge cutoff | - | 2026-02 |
| Context window | 200K | 1.1M |
| Max output | 131K | 128K |
| Thinking parameter | thinking.type | reasoning.effort |
| Accepted values | thinking.type
| reasoning.effort
|
| Default | enabled, and the model automatically determines whether to think | medium |
Specs are transcribed from each vendor’s documentation; a row a vendor does not publish is left out rather than inferred. Full sources: GLM-5.1 · GPT-5.6
One prompt, both models, measured through the gateway
GLM-5.1 passed · 3 sentences
Enabling reasoning shifts the LLM from generating quick answers to producing hidden "chain-of-thought" tokens that systematically explore multiple solution paths before responding. Because billing is based on total tokens processed, these invisible reasoning tokens drastically increase input and output volume per query, often adding thousands of compute-intensive tokens to a single prompt. Consequently, our bill doubled not from higher per-token rates or increased user volume, but from the exponentially deeper computational work required to deliver higher-quality, more reliable outputs.
out 98 tok latency 7.8 s
GPT-5.6 passed · 3 sentences
Enabling reasoning makes the model generate many additional internal tokens before producing an answer, so each request consumes substantially more compute. Those reasoning tokens are billed even though they are not visible to users, and longer processing can also increase tool calls, retries, and output length. The bill doubled because our cost per request rose, not necessarily because usage volume increased; we can control it by limiting reasoning effort and routing simpler tasks to cheaper models.
out 126 tok (+30 thinking) latency 3.0 s
Instruction following (exactly three sentences, so countable), audience shaping (CFO register), and the hidden-thinking billing gap the token meters below expose.
GLM-5.1 passed · 8/8 cases
```python def longest_run(xs): if not xs: return 0 best = 1 cur = 1 for i in range(1, len(xs)): if xs[i] == xs[i - 1]: cur += 1 best = max(best, cur) else: cur = 1 return best ``` **Explanation:** The original function initialized `cur` and `best` to `0` and only incremented `cur` when a duplicate was found. This counts the number of *extra* equal items in a run rather than the total run length, so every run is reported as one shorter than it actually is—returning `0` for single-element lists and `L-1` for a run of length `L` (including those ending at the last index). The fix initializes `cur` and `best` to `1` (when the list is non‑empty) and resets `cur` to `1` on a mismatch, so `cur` tracks the full length of the current run and `best` records the true maximum.
out 3823 tok (+3585 thinking) latency 49.7 s
GPT-5.6 passed · 8/8 cases
```python def longest_run(xs): if not xs: return 0 best = cur = 1 for i in range(1, len(xs)): if xs[i] == xs[i - 1]: cur += 1 else: best = max(best, cur) cur = 1 return max(best, cur) ``` The original code counted equal *transitions* rather than items, so a run of one had length `0`, a run of three had length `2`, and tracking from zero caused the off-by-one error. The corrected version starts each run at length `1`, resets to `1` when the value changes, and performs a final `max` after the loop so a run ending at the last element is included; an empty input still returns `0`.
out 277 tok (+93 thinking) latency 4.2 s
Whether the fix is actually correct (runnable), explanation density, and token efficiency on a bounded task.
GLM-5.1 passed · 5/5 fields, guidance "withheld pending the Q4 close"
```json { "company": "Meridian Robotics", "quarter": "September quarter", "revenue_usd_m": 412, "growth_pct": "eleven and change", "guidance": "withheld pending the Q4 close" } ```
out 1091 tok (+1028 thinking) latency 15.2 s
GPT-5.6 passed · 5/5 fields, guidance "withheld pending the Q4 close"
{ "company": "Meridian Robotics", "quarter": "September quarter", "revenue_usd_m": 412, "growth_pct": null, "guidance": "withheld pending the Q4 close" }
out 179 tok (+118 thinking) latency 3.7 s
Schema obedience (no invented fields), hallucination pressure (guidance is explicitly withheld), and structured-output path differences.
GLM-5.1 passed · 120 words, 0 banned, 1 question
We are excited to introduce Prompt Cache for our API Gateway. This new feature stores responses for identical prompts, routing subsequent requests directly to the cache instead of calling the underlying AI provider. Are you tired of paying multiple times for the exact same query? Prompt Cache solves this by recognizing duplicate inputs across all supported providers, drastically reducing latency and operational costs. When a user submits a request that matches a previously cached prompt, the gateway returns the stored answer instantly. You can configure cache expiration and scope rules via your dashboard to maintain data freshness. Stop wasting budget on redundant computational work. Upgrade to the latest gateway tier today to start saving time and money on every call.
out 3935 tok (+3802 thinking) latency 41.1 s
GPT-5.6 passed · 120 words, 0 banned, 1 question
Today we are introducing Prompt Cache, a new API gateway feature that stores reusable prompt prefixes and serves them across supported model providers. By recognizing identical system instructions, tools, examples, and context blocks, Prompt Cache reduces repeated input processing, lowers latency, and helps control token costs without changing application code. Teams can configure retention windows, cache keys, provider routing, encryption, and regional storage policies from one dashboard or API. What happens when a preferred provider is unavailable? The gateway can route requests to another provider while reusing eligible cached content, preserving performance and consistency. Built-in metrics report hit rates, savings, latency, and provider usage, while audit logs support governance. Prompt Cache is available today in public preview for all customers.
out 628 tok (+473 thinking) latency 7.3 s
Constraint obedience (word budget, banned-word list, the single question), style fingerprint, and length control.
Switch between them with one line
Both ids are in every tab below; the highlighted pair of lines is the only edit. Same endpoint, same key, same request shape.
from openai import OpenAI
client = OpenAI(
base_url="https://synthorai.io/v1",
api_key="sk-syn-...",
)
resp = client.chat.completions.create(
model="glm-5.1",
# model="gpt-5.6", # uncomment this line, comment the one above
messages=[{"role": "user", "content": "Summarize this diff"}],
reasoning_effort="medium",
)
print(resp.choices[0].message.content)import OpenAI from "openai";
const client = new OpenAI({
baseURL: "https://synthorai.io/v1",
apiKey: "sk-syn-...",
});
const resp = await client.chat.completions.create({
model: "glm-5.1",
// model: "gpt-5.6", // uncomment this line, comment the one above
messages: [{ role: "user", content: "Summarize this diff" }],
reasoning_effort: "medium",
});
console.log(resp.choices[0].message.content);curl https://synthorai.io/v1/chat/completions \
-H "Authorization: Bearer sk-syn-..." \
-H "Content-Type: application/json" \
-d '{
"model": "glm-5.1",
# "model": "gpt-5.6", # uncomment this line, comment the one above
"messages": [{"role": "user", "content": "Hello"}],
"reasoning_effort": "medium"
}'package main
import (
"context"
"fmt"
"github.com/openai/openai-go/v3"
"github.com/openai/openai-go/v3/option"
)
func main() {
client := openai.NewClient(
option.WithBaseURL("https://synthorai.io/v1"),
option.WithAPIKey("sk-syn-..."),
)
resp, _ := client.Chat.Completions.New(context.TODO(), openai.ChatCompletionNewParams{
Model: "glm-5.1",
// Model: "gpt-5.6", // uncomment this line, comment the one above
Messages: []openai.ChatCompletionMessageParamUnion{
openai.UserMessage("Summarize this diff"),
},
ReasoningEffort: openai.ReasoningEffortMedium,
})
fmt.Println(resp.Choices[0].Message.Content)
}import com.openai.client.OpenAIClient;
import com.openai.client.okhttp.OpenAIOkHttpClient;
import com.openai.models.chat.completions.*;
import com.openai.models.ReasoningEffort;
OpenAIClient client = OpenAIOkHttpClient.builder()
.baseUrl("https://synthorai.io/v1")
.apiKey("sk-syn-...")
.build();
ChatCompletion resp = client.chat().completions().create(
ChatCompletionCreateParams.builder()
.model("glm-5.1")
// .model("gpt-5.6") // uncomment this line, comment the one above
.addUserMessage("Summarize this diff")
.reasoningEffort(ReasoningEffort.MEDIUM)
.build());
System.out.println(resp.choices().get(0).message().content().orElse(""));FAQ
Which is cheaper, GLM-5.1 or GPT-5.6?
GLM-5.1 is cheaper on the "Input / 1M tokens" row ($1.4 vs $5, 3.6× apart). Other rows may point the other way; the table above carries the full rate card, and real cost depends on your mix.
Can I A/B test GLM-5.1 against GPT-5.6 without two integrations?
Yes. Both are served through the same OpenAI-compatible endpoint with one API key. Switching is a one-line change to the model id, so you can route a fraction of traffic to each and compare bills directly.
Do GLM-5.1 and GPT-5.6 support prompt caching?
Yes. Both bill cache reads below their input rate, so warm-prefix workloads cost less than the list rates suggest. The exact cache-read rows are in the pricing table above.