MolmoAct 2 vs GLM 5.1
At a Glance
| Compare | MolmoAct 2Ai2 | GLM 5.1Z.ai |
|---|---|---|
| Pricing and Limits | ||
| Context windowMaximum documented tokens | Not reported | 203K |
| Model facts checked | Aug 29, 2026View model evidence → | Aug 28, 2026View model evidence → |
Available Benchmarks
Side-by-Side Facts
| Field | MolmoAct 2 | GLM-5.1 |
|---|---|---|
| Developer | Ai2 | Z.ai |
| Family | MolmoAct 2 | Glm 5 1 |
| Model | MolmoAct 2 | GLM-5.1 |
| Version | 2 | GLM-5.1 |
| Lifecycle | active | active |
| Released | 2026-05-05 | Unknown |
| Knowledge cutoff | Unknown | Unknown |
| Input modalities | Text, Image, Robot state | Text |
| Output modalities | Robot action | Text |
| Context window | Unknown | 203K |
| Total parameters | 5B | 753.9B |
| Active parameters | Unknown | Unknown |
| License | apache-2.0 | mit |
| Open weights | Yes | Yes |
| API available | No | Yes |
| Self-hostable | Yes | Yes |
| Provider access | Unknown | Deepinfra (Standard), Hugging Face (Standard), Openrouter (Standard), Together Ai (Standard) |
| Capabilities | action-reasoning, bimanual-manipulation, depth-reasoning, fine-tuning | chat, generation, reasoning, tools |
| Robotics model type | Action reasoning model | Unknown |
| Action representation | Flow-matching continuous action expert | Unknown |
| Control architecture | Molmo 2-ER backbone with KV-cache bridge and action expert | Unknown |
| Inference location | Flexible | Unknown |
| Native control rate (Hz) | Unknown | Unknown |
| Supported embodiments | SO-100, SO-101, Franka, WidowX, bimanual YAM | Unknown |
| Training data | Open bimanual YAM, SO-100/SO-101, DROID, BC-Z, Fractal, Bridge, and prior MolmoAct data described by Ai2. | Unknown |
MolmoAct 2 Capabilities
GLM 5.1 Capabilities
Primary Evidence
Sources and Freshness
Questions
MolmoAct 2 vs GLM 5.1 FAQs
Is MolmoAct 2 or GLM 5.1 better for coding?+
This comparison does not currently contain a protocol-matched coding benchmark for both MolmoAct 2 and GLM 5.1, so Model Markets cannot name a coding leader from pricing, context size, or capability labels alone.
Which is cheaper, MolmoAct 2 or GLM 5.1?+
Only GLM 5.1 has a directly sourced input price: $1.05 per million tokens. Only GLM 5.1 has a directly sourced output price: $3.50 per million tokens.
Which has a larger context window, MolmoAct 2 or GLM 5.1?+
Neither model has a larger sourced context window in this comparison. MolmoAct 2 is — and GLM 5.1 is 203K.
Which performs better in benchmarks, MolmoAct 2 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 MolmoAct 2 or GLM 5.1 be self-hosted?+
Both models have the same recorded self-hosting status: supported. MolmoAct 2 is open weight; GLM 5.1 is open weight.
Can MolmoAct 2 and GLM 5.1 understand images?+
MolmoAct 2 is 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, MolmoAct 2 or GLM 5.1?+
Neither has a larger sourced maximum output. MolmoAct 2 is — and GLM 5.1 is —.
Do MolmoAct 2 and GLM 5.1 support reasoning and tool use?+
MolmoAct 2: reasoning and image input. GLM 5.1: reasoning and tool calling. Feature support does not establish relative quality.
Which is available from more inference providers, MolmoAct 2 or GLM 5.1?+
MolmoAct 2 has 0 sourced provider routes; GLM 5.1 has 4, so GLM 5.1 has broader tracked availability.
Which offers better value, MolmoAct 2 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.