DeepSeek R1 vs GLM 5.1
At a Glance
| Compare |  DeepSeek R1DeepSeek |  GLM 5.1Z.ai |
|---|---|---|
| Intelligence, Cost, and Efficiency | ||
| IntelligenceHigher is better · MM Intelligence v4.4 | #42 of 570.4 score · 1/3 sources · single-source provisional · missing LiveBench, ARC-AGI-2 · full-core range 0.1–66.8 | UnrankedNot in the 57-model eligible cohort |
| Pricing and Limits | ||
| Input priceFrom · USD / 1M tokens | $0.70Openrouter ↗ · Aug 28, 2026 | $1.05Deepinfra ↗ · Sep 24, 2026 |
| Output priceFrom · USD / 1M tokens | $2.50Openrouter ↗ · Aug 28, 2026 | $3.50Deepinfra ↗ · Sep 24, 2026 |
| Context windowMaximum documented tokens | 164K | 203K |
| Model facts checked | Aug 28, 2026View model evidence → | Aug 28, 2026View model evidence → |
Token prices are the lowest available sourced USD rates; input and output may use different providers. Cost ranking estimates output spend on LiveBench, not a full request bill. Ranking methodology →
Available Benchmarks
| Benchmark | DeepSeek-R1 | GLM-5.1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text Arenatext-2026-10-15-a64ca3b12b6e · arena_rating · leader | 1,372.6594% of row best · rating · deepseek-r1; 95% CI [1367.80631687, 1377.49940563]; votes 18524; rank 181 | 1,462.40100% of row best · rating · glm-5.1; 95% CI [1458.83486169, 1465.97294166]; votes 62889; rank 39 |
| Overall ResultCounted from the protocol-matched rows above | 0 benchmark winsNo overall winner | 1 benchmark winNo overall winner |
Third-party benchmark Only like-for-like primary-publisher results are shown; raw scores, relative scores, configuration, and token spend remain visible.
Side-by-Side Facts
| Field | DeepSeek-R1 | GLM-5.1 |
|---|---|---|
| Developer | DeepSeek | Z.ai |
| Family | Deepseek R1 | Glm 5 1 |
| Model | DeepSeek-R1 | GLM-5.1 |
| Version | DeepSeek-R1 | GLM-5.1 |
| Lifecycle | active | active |
| Released | 2025-01-20 | Unknown |
| Knowledge cutoff | Unknown | Unknown |
| Input modalities | Text | Text |
| Output modalities | Text | Text |
| Context window | 164K | 203K |
| Total parameters | 684.5B | 753.9B |
| Active parameters | 37B | Unknown |
| License | mit | mit |
| Open weights | Yes | Yes |
| API available | Yes | Yes |
| Self-hostable | Yes | Yes |
| Provider access | Hugging Face (Standard), Openrouter (Standard) | Deepinfra (Standard), Hugging Face (Standard), Openrouter (Standard), Together Ai (Standard) |
| Capabilities | chat, generation, reasoning | chat, generation, reasoning, tools |
DeepSeek R1 Capabilities
GLM 5.1 Capabilities
Related Comparisons
All text comparisons →| A | Pair | B | Context |
|---|---|---|---|
DeepSeek-R1DeepSeek | vs | cross-developer peerstext | |
DeepSeek-R1DeepSeek | vs |  Phi-4-reasoningMicrosoft | cross-developer peerstext |
DeepSeek-R1DeepSeek | vs | DeepSeek-V4-Pro-BaseDeepSeek | family variantstext |
| vs | DeepSeek-R1DeepSeek | cross-developer peerstext | |
| vs | DeepSeek-R1DeepSeek | cross-developer peerstext | |
DeepSeek-R1DeepSeek | vs | DeepSeek-V3DeepSeek | family variantstext |
DeepSeek-R1DeepSeek | vs | DeepSeek-V3.2DeepSeek | family variantstext |
DeepSeek-R1DeepSeek | vs |  Llama-3.1-405BMeta | cross-developer peerstext |
DeepSeek-R1DeepSeek | vs | cross-developer peerstext | |
DeepSeek-R1DeepSeek | vs |  Kimi-K2-ThinkingMoonshot AI | cross-developer peerstext |
DeepSeek-R1DeepSeek | vs | GLM-5Z.ai | cross-developer peerstext |
Primary Evidence
Sources and Freshness
Questions
DeepSeek R1 vs GLM 5.1 FAQs
Is DeepSeek R1 or GLM 5.1 better for coding?+
This comparison does not currently contain a protocol-matched coding benchmark for both DeepSeek R1 and GLM 5.1, so Model Markets cannot name a coding leader from pricing, context size, or capability labels alone.
Which is cheaper, DeepSeek R1 or GLM 5.1?+
DeepSeek R1 is $0.70 and GLM 5.1 is $1.05 per million tokens, so DeepSeek R1 is cheaper on this metric. DeepSeek R1 is $2.50 and GLM 5.1 is $3.50 per million tokens, so DeepSeek R1 is cheaper on this metric.
Which has a larger context window, DeepSeek R1 or GLM 5.1?+
GLM 5.1 has the larger sourced context window. DeepSeek R1 supports 163,840 tokens and GLM 5.1 supports 202,752 tokens.
Which performs better in benchmarks, DeepSeek R1 or GLM 5.1?+
There is no overall benchmark winner: At least two independently verified, protocol-matched benchmarks are required for an overall winner.
Can DeepSeek R1 or GLM 5.1 be self-hosted?+
Both models have the same sourced self-hosting status: supported. DeepSeek R1 is open weight; GLM 5.1 is open weight.
Can DeepSeek R1 and GLM 5.1 understand images?+
DeepSeek R1 is not documented with image input; GLM 5.1 is not documented with image input. This reflects supported input modalities, not vision quality.
Which can generate longer answers, DeepSeek R1 or GLM 5.1?+
DeepSeek R1 has a sourced maximum output of 32,768 tokens; GLM 5.1's maximum output is not reported. A larger limit cannot be determined.
Do DeepSeek R1 and GLM 5.1 support reasoning and tool use?+
DeepSeek R1: reasoning. GLM 5.1: reasoning and tool calling. Feature support does not establish relative quality.
Which is available from more inference providers, DeepSeek R1 or GLM 5.1?+
DeepSeek R1 has 2 sourced provider routes; GLM 5.1 has 4, so GLM 5.1 has broader tracked availability.
Which offers better value, DeepSeek R1 or GLM 5.1?+
There is no universal value winner. Compare the input and output prices above with the matched benchmark result for your workload: cheaper tokens can be offset by different quality, token usage, latency, or provider availability.