Composer 2vsGLM-5.1
Composer 2 | GLM-5.1 | |
|---|---|---|
| Specifications | ||
ParametersA rough measure of how big the model is. More parameters usually means more capable and more expensive to run, though it is a poor guide on its own — a smaller, newer model often beats a larger, older one. | — | 744B |
Context windowHow much text the model can hold in mind at once — your question, any documents you attach, the conversation so far, and its own reply. Go past it and the earliest part falls out of view. | — | 200k |
| API pricingUSD per 1M tokens · lower wins | ||
Input priceWhat you pay for everything you send the model — your question, plus any documents or earlier conversation you include with it. | — | $1.40 |
Output priceWhat you pay for the text the model writes back. It is normally the dearer half: producing an answer costs more than reading one. | — | $4.40 |
Cached input priceA reduced rate for text you send over and over. If every request starts with the same instructions or the same document, the provider keeps a copy ready and charges less to read it again. | — | $0.26 |
Cheapest inputLowest input rate across third-party providers, excluding the lab itself. The cheapest endpoint may run a quantised build or a shorter context — see "Available from" on the model page. | — | $0.9646Baidu |
Cheapest outputLowest output rate across third-party providers, excluding the lab itself. May come from a different provider than the cheapest input. | — | $3.0316Baidu |
| Benchmarks | ||
Next.js EvalsNext.js coding — Vercel'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. | 58% | 58% |
Terminal-Bench 2.0Agentic terminal coding — Can 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. | 61.7% | 63.5% |
| BenchmarksPublished by one model only | ||
BullshitBench v2Nonsense detection — Given 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% |
SWE-Bench MultilingualMultilingual coding — Like SWE-Bench, but the coding problems span many programming languages, not just one. Tests how broadly the AI can code. Higher is better. | 73.7% | — |
BrowseCompWeb browsing — Can the AI browse the web and track down hard-to-find answers? Higher is better. | — | 68% |
Humanity's Last Exam · with toolsMultidisciplinary reasoning — Humanity'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% |
GPQA DiamondScience — Graduate-level science questions in biology, physics, and chemistry — hard enough that subject-matter PhDs score around 65%. Higher is better. | — | 86.2% |
| Overview | ||
| Company | SpaceXAI | Z.ai |
| Release date | Mar 19 2026 | Apr 7 2026 |
| Access | Proprietary | Open Weight |
Other comparisons
Composer 2vsClaude Fable 5.1GLM-5.1vsClaude Fable 5.1Composer 2vsGPT-6 AstraGLM-5.1vsGPT-6 AstraComposer 2vsGemini 3.8 FlashGLM-5.1vsGemini 3.8 FlashComposer 2vsMuse Spark 1.3GLM-5.1vsMuse Spark 1.3Composer 2vsDeepSeek-V4.1-FlashGLM-5.1vsDeepSeek-V4.1-FlashComposer 2vsMistral Medium 3.5GLM-5.1vsMistral Medium 3.5
Frequently asked questions
GLM-5.1 leads Composer 2 on 1 of the 2 benchmarks they both report (Next.js Evals, Terminal-Bench 2.0). Only GLM-5.1 has a verified first-party API price: $1.40 per million input tokens and $4.40 per million output tokens. No pay-as-you-go API rate is tracked for Composer 2. Composer 2 shipped 19 days before GLM-5.1, so benchmark comparisons should account for the intervening progress.
Composer 2 is proprietary, while GLM-5.1 is open weight.
On Next.js Evals, both models score 58%. On Terminal-Bench 2.0, GLM-5.1 leads at 63.5% vs Composer 2 at 61.7%.