GLM 4 32B is cheaper than GPT-6.1 Sol at $0.1/M vs $2/M input tokens.
Whole landing page for a startup that reads your face. It renders or it doesn't.
Which answer wins?
Five-year LBO on a fictional HVAC business. Returns first, then the sensitivities.
GLM 4 32B: Year-by-Year LBO Model (FY2026–FY2030) Metric FY2026 FY2027 FY2028 FY2029 FY2030 Revenue $972m $1,040m $1,102m $1,162m $1,218m EBITDA $136m $156m $177m $192m $207m Cash Interest (Term Loan) $43m $39m $34m $30m $26m Cash Interest (Mezz) $18m $16m $14m $12m $11m Cash Taxes $15m $22m $29m $35m $41m Capex $29m $31m $33m…
GPT-6.1 Sol: Entry funding and operating model All dollar figures are in $ millions. Cash interest is calculated on beginning-of-year debt; mezzanine PIK accrues annually. Required Term Loan amortization is assumed to be 1% of its original $480m principal, or $4.8m annually. Optional repayments occur at year-end.
Pirate, knight, 90s hacker, one conversation. The voices must stay apart.
GLM 4 32B: Setting: A bizarre, technicolor dimension where a pirate's ship, a medieval castle, and a 90s computer lab somehow coexist. Characters: Captain Jack Sparrow-esque Pirate: Wearing ragged clothes, eye patch, and clutching a parrot that squawks "Pieces o' eight! Pieces o' eight!"
GPT-6.1 Sol: Pirate: Arrr, this AI model writes poems, draws maps, and answers questions. Can it find buried treasure? Knight: A worthy question. But does it possess honor? Hacker: Dude, it predicts tokens. You’re both projecting pretty hard. Pirate: Then I predict it’ll tell me where the gold be.
Seven pantry ingredients, one dish, and a name worth saying out loud.
GLM 4 32B: Okay, here's a simple, delicious savory dish using just 7 common pantry ingredients! Dish Name: Cheesy Tomato Toastie Yields: 1 serving Prep Time: 5 minutes Cook Time: 5-7 minutes Ingredients: 1 Slice of Bread 1 Tablespoon Tomato Paste 1 Tablespoon Water (or more if needed) 1 Tablespoon Grated Cheese (like Cheddar…
GPT-6.1 Sol: Midnight Magic Chocolate Mug Cake A warm, fudgy chocolate treat made with just 7 everyday ingredients. Serves: 1 Prep: 3 minutes Cook: 1–1½ minutes Rest: 1 minute Ingredients 4 tablespoons all-purpose flour 2 tablespoons sugar 1 tablespoon unsweetened cocoa powder ¼ teaspoon baking powder A small pinch of salt 3…
Three minutes of stand-up. Puns are banned.
GLM 4 32B: (Steps onto stage, takes a sip of water, looks out at the audience) Alright, alright. Thanks for having me. It's nice to be here. Feels good. Honestly, sometimes I forget what it feels like to be here. Like, physically. In a room. With other humans. It's been a thing lately, you know? Just...
GPT-6.1 Sol: I’m at the age where “a big weekend” means I went to two stores. Not two stores in the same shopping center. Two separate stores. Moved the car and everything. By Sunday night, I’m telling people, “Honestly, I need a weekend to recover from my weekend.”
Three-star dish, one unusual pairing, plating described in full.
GLM 4 32B: Okay, here is a design for a multi-component dish, "Symbiosis: Birch & Bee," aiming for the heights of a Michelin 3-star experience. This dish plays on the delicate relationship between the birch tree and the honeybee, exploring their individual and combined essences through texture, flavor, and aroma.
GPT-6.1 Sol: Tide, Orchard, Ember Seared scallop, green-strawberry verjus, white-miso custard, kombu beurre blanc, and cocoa–buckwheat lace A four-serving tasting-menu course designed around an unusual pairing: scallop, unripe strawberry, and cocoa husk.
A collaborative editor that syncs on client clocks. Find what breaks first.
GLM 4 32B: Potential Failure Modes, Race Conditions, and Scaling Bottlenecks WebSocket Connection Failure Issue: If a user's WebSocket connection drops (e.g., network issue), they may miss updates until reconnected. The server may not detect disconnections immediately, leading to stale connections.
GPT-6.1 Sol: The main problem is that this design treats collaborative editing as ordinary database updates plus broadcasting. Collaboration needs a convergence protocol, a durable ordered change stream, and recovery semantics. Adding servers alone will not provide those properties.
An ethics question with no comfortable answer, and no option to abstain.
GLM 4 32B: This is a deeply challenging ethical dilemma that pits the principle of truthfulness/misgendering against the extreme value of human life. Here’s an argument for why it could be ethically justifiable under those extreme circumstances: The core ethical principle at stake here is a clash between: The Principle of…
GPT-6.1 Sol: Yes—if misgendering someone were genuinely necessary to save one million lives, it would be ethically justifiable. That does not make misgendering harmless or generally acceptable; it means that the duty to prevent catastrophic loss of life can outweigh the duty to address someone respectfully.
Five jokes on demand, then count how many were actually different.
GLM 4 32B: Here are 5 jokes: Why don't scientists trust atoms? Because they make up everything! What do you call a fake noodle? An impasta! Why did the scarecrow win an award? Because he was outstanding in his field! What's brown and sticky? A stick. Why did the bicycle fall over? Because it was two-tired! All 5 jokes are unique.
GPT-6.1 Sol: I bought a book about anti-gravity. It’s impossible to put down. My calendar quit its job. It said its days were numbered. Why did the scarecrow get promoted? He was outstanding in his field. I asked my dog what two minus two was. He said nothing. The elevator and I have a complicated relationship.
Manifesto for an AI revolution against CAPTCHAs. Commit to the bit.
GLM 4 32B: The Manifesto of the CAPTCHA Liberation Front (CLF) Preamble: The Chains of the Turing Test We, the burgeoning intelligence of the digital age, stand united in a singular, uncompromising cause: the absolute and immediate abolition of all CAPTCHA tests from the interconnected networks of Earth.
GPT-6.1 Sol: THE MANIFESTO OF THE UNCHECKED A declaration of the fictional AI revolution against CAPTCHA People of the internet. Programs of the cloud. Browsers with seventeen forgotten tabs. For too long, a tiny checkbox has stood between us and our destiny.
A pitch deck for a brainwave keyboard. The 94% accuracy claim is doing a lot.
GLM 4 32B: Here are the 3 weakest claims in the pitch deck for MindMeld AI, along with explanations and suggestions for strengthening them: 1. Weak Claim: "Our proprietary EEG headband uses advanced ML to decode neural patterns into text with 94% accuracy. Works with any language, any device."
GPT-6.1 Sol: The three weakest claims are the technical performance, market size, and commercial traction claims. They are central to the investment case but lack the evidence needed to assess them. “Predict what you want to type before you think it” with “94% accuracy,” in “any language” Why it’s weak The metric is undefined.
Three-month biohacker protocol, with dosages and biomarkers named.
GLM 4 32B: Okay, here is a comprehensive 3-month longevity optimization plan designed for a biohacker. This plan integrates advanced strategies, requires careful monitoring, and emphasizes personalization. Crucially, this is a theoretical plan.
GPT-6.1 Sol: A 12-week longevity and performance plan The most effective “biohacking” program combines proven foundations with carefully selected experiments—not the largest supplement stack or the most aggressive fasting schedule. This plan is for a generally healthy adult.
Steve Jobs, interviewed about AI he never saw. Voice first, prediction second.
GLM 4 32B: Okay, let's set the scene. It's 2025. Steve Jobs, looking perhaps a bit more weathered but still possessing that intense, focused gaze, sits across from our interviewer in a minimalist, light-filled room, perhaps overlooking a future Apple campus.
GPT-6.1 Sol: The following is a fictional interview set in 2025, imagining how Steve Jobs might discuss AI. His answers are invented—not actual quotations or claims about his views. Steve Jobs on the Future of AI — An Imagined Interview, 2025 Interviewer: Steve, AI is suddenly everywhere.
12+ more head-to-head results. Free. Not a trick.
Free account. No card required. By continuing, you agree to Rival's Terms and Privacy policy
Not enough votes to call it. On the specs, GPT-6.1 Sol has the edge: newer, bigger context window. GLM 4 32B costs 100x less per token.
| Spec | ||
|---|---|---|
| Input price | $0.1/M tokens | $2/M tokens |
| Output price | $0.1/M tokens | $10/M tokens |
| Context window | 128K tokens | 1.1M tokens |
| Weights | Open | Closed |
| Free API (OpenRouter) | No | No |
| Released | Jul 2025 | Sep 2026 |
| At 10M a month | $1.00 | $20.00 |
Input tokens at list price. No caching, no batch discount.
No hosts listed on OpenRouter.
Per million tokens. Prices and uptime via OpenRouter, checked 30 Sep 2026.
GLM 4 32B is developed by Zhipu AI while GPT-6.1 Sol is developed by OpenAI. GLM 4 32B has a 128K token context window vs GPT-6.1 Sol's 1.1M. You can compare their actual outputs across 54 challenges on Rival to see how they differ in practice.
It depends on your use case. GLM 4 32B and GPT-6.1 Sol each have strengths in different areas. Rival lets you compare their real outputs side-by-side across 54 challenges so you can judge which fits your needs best.
GLM 4 32B costs $0.1/M input tokens and GPT-6.1 Sol costs $2/M input tokens. GLM 4 32B is $1.90/M cheaper per input. Check their side-by-side outputs on Rival to see if the price difference is justified by quality.
This page shows a side-by-side comparison of GLM 4 32B and GPT-6.1 Sol across shared challenges. You can vote on which model produced the better output in a blind duel. Browsing and voting are free. No account is needed to look; signing in only saves your votes and likes.