Claude Instant 1.2vsGLM-5.1
Claude Instant 1.2 | GLM-5.1 | |
|---|---|---|
| Specifications | ||
Parameters | — | 744B |
Context window | 100k | 200k |
| Benchmarks | ||
Nonsense detection BullshitBench v2Given a confidently-worded but nonsensical prompt, does the AI spot that it makes no sense and push back — instead of playing along and inventing an answer? The score is how often it clearly called out the nonsense. Higher is better. | — | 22% |
Next.js coding Next.js EvalsVercel's open eval of how well AI coding agents build and migrate real Next.js apps — measured as the share of tasks the agent completes successfully. Higher is better. | — | 75% |
Function synthesis HumanEval164 small Python problems: the AI is given a function's description and has to write the working function. This was the coding benchmark of the GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 era, before the field moved to fixing real bugs in real repositories. Higher is better. | 58.7% | — |
Agentic terminal coding Terminal-Bench 2.0Can the AI work in a command-line terminal — running commands and finishing technical setup tasks the way a developer would? (Version 2.0 of the test.) Higher is better. | — | 63.5% |
Web browsing BrowseCompCan the AI browse the web and track down hard-to-find answers? Higher is better. | — | 68% |
Multidisciplinary reasoning Humanity's Last Exam · with toolsHumanity's Last Exam — extremely hard expert questions across many subjects. “With tools” means the AI is allowed to search the web or run code while answering. Higher is better. | — | 52.3% |
Science GPQA DiamondGraduate-level science questions in biology, physics, and chemistry — hard enough that subject-matter PhDs score around 65%. Higher is better. | — | 86.2% |
Grade-school math GSM8KGrade-school maths word problems that take a few steps of arithmetic to work through. It separated the models of 2022 and 2023 sharply, then saturated. One caveat on the historical numbers: OpenAI included part of the GSM8K training set in GPT-4's pre-training mix, so GPT-4's score is not a clean few-shot result. Higher is better. | 86.7% | — |
Community preference Arena Elo (Text)Real people chat with two anonymous AIs side by side and vote for the answer they prefer. Votes become a chess-style Elo rating on arena.ai — it measures which AI people actually like, not test scores. Higher is better. | — | 1468 |
Community preference (code) Arena Elo (Code)Like the text arena, but people vote on which AI writes better code. The votes become a chess-style Elo rating on arena.ai. Higher is better. | — | 1510 |
| Overview | ||
| Company | Anthropic | Z.ai |
| Release date | Aug 9 2023 | Apr 7 2026 |
| Access | Proprietary | Open Weight |
Which is better: Claude Instant 1.2 or GLM-5.1?
Claude Instant 1.2 and GLM-5.1 don't publish scores on any of the same benchmarks, so there's no direct head-to-head comparison. Claude Instant 1.2 shipped 972 days before GLM-5.1, so benchmark comparisons should account for the intervening progress.
Context windows are 100k (Claude Instant 1.2) vs 200k (GLM-5.1). Claude Instant 1.2 is proprietary, while GLM-5.1 is open weight.
Direct benchmark comparisons are unavailable — Claude Instant 1.2 and GLM-5.1 don't publish scores on any of the same benchmarks.
Frequently asked questions
Claude Instant 1.2 was released by Anthropic on Aug 9 2023.
GLM-5.1 was released by Z.ai on Apr 7 2026.
Claude Instant 1.2 has a 100k context window; GLM-5.1 has 200k.
Claude Instant 1.2 is a proprietary model released by Anthropic. GLM-5.1 is an open weight model released by Z.ai.