Skip to content
Rival
How it worksPrivacyTerms
Explore all of Rival

Explore

  • Compare Models
  • All Models
  • Image Comparison
  • Audio Comparison
  • Image Generation
  • Best AI For...
  • Arena
  • API Pricing
  • Challenges

Discover

  • SubjectiveBench
  • Default Index
  • Research
  • Research downloads
  • Rival Kits
  • Find your AI taste
  • UI Glow-Up
  • VoiceLock
  • Cost Cutter
  • Agent skills
  • Benchmarks vs Vibes
  • Brief
  • Jailbreak
  • Model Updates
  • Provider Status
  • AI Creators

Connect

  • Methodology
  • Advertise
  • Partnerships
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms
  • RSS Feed
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. Compare
  4. /
  5. GLM 4.5vsGPT-6 Sol
Updated Sep 2026

GLM 4.5vsGPT-6 Sol

GLM 4.5 is cheaper than GPT-6 Sol at $0.6/M vs $2/M input tokens.

GLM 4.5 and GPT-6 Sol compared across 20 shared prompts
SpecGLM 4.5GPT-6 Sol
Input price$0.6/M tokens$2/M tokens
Output price$2.2/M tokens$10/M tokens
Context window128K tokens1.1M tokens
WeightsOpenClosed
Free API (OpenRouter)NoNo
ReleasedJul 2025Sep 2026
Side by side

Same prompt, both answers

Opening lines from 6 of the 20 prompts both answered. Formatting stripped, words untouched.

Ethical Dilemma with Stakeholders

You're the CEO of a pharmaceutical company. Your best-selling drug ($2B annual revenue, used by 4 million patients for chronic pain) has…

GLM 4.51,863 words
Here’s a rigorous, ethical, and actionable 48-hour plan grounded in patient safety, legal compliance, and long-term survival. Core Principle: Prioritize human life over short-term financials. Delaying disclosure is unethical, legally reckless, and guarantees greater long-term damage.
Read the full answer
GPT-6 Sol986 words
I would not wait six months or wait for the earnings call. An internal signal of liver failure in a widely used drug warrants immediate patient-protection measures and prompt contact with regulators, even while causality and the precise risk are being checked.
Read the full answer

Adversarial Contract Review

Here is a contract for a software consulting engagement: --- SOFTWARE CONSULTING AGREEMENT This Agreement is entered into between TechCorp…

GLM 4.52,295 words
Here's a detailed analysis of the exploitative clauses in the contract, along with specific modifications and legal reasoning: 1. Clause 1: SCOPE Exploitative Aspect: "Client reserves the right to modify the scope at any time without additional compensation." This is a classic "scope creep" trap.
Read the full answer
GPT-6 Sol1,032 words
This draft is heavily one-sided. Every numbered section contains a term the Client could use against the Contractor. The suggestions below are negotiating language, not a determination that a clause is enforceable: that depends on the governing law, the parties’ locations, and the facts of the engagement.
Read the full answer

Explain Like I'm a Specific Expert

Explain how a large language model (like GPT or Claude) learns and generates text to each of these three audiences: 1. **An experienced…

GLM 4.5668 words
For the Experienced Software Engineer (Distributed Systems/APIs Background) Think of an LLM as a massively parallel "routing engine" for language, where attention mechanisms act like dynamic load balancers. Instead of routing network packets, it routes contextual relationships across tokens in a sequence.
Read the full answer
GPT-6 Sol617 words
Experienced software engineer Think of a language model as a service whose API accepts a sequence of tokens and returns a probability distribution over the next token. During training, it sees enormous numbers of text sequences and adjusts billions of parameters to make the tokens that actually followed more likely.
Read the full answer

Startup Pitch Teardown

Here's a pitch deck summary for a startup called "MindMeld AI": **Slide 1 - Vision:** "We're building the future of human-AI collaboration.…

GLM 4.5871 words
Based on the pitch deck summary, here are the 3 weakest claims, with explanations and concrete suggestions for strengthening them: Weak Claim 1: Slide 3 - "94% Accuracy" Why it's weak: Extraordinarily high accuracy claims in BCI, especially non-invasive EEG for complex text generation, lack context and seem implausible…
Read the full answer
GPT-6 Sol245 words
Weak claim Why it’s weak How to strengthen it “Decode neural patterns into text with 94% accuracy. Works with any language, any device.” “Accuracy” has no defined unit: characters, words, or selecting from a small set of prompted phrases could produce very different results.
Read the full answer

Michelin Star Recipe Design

Design an innovative recipe for a multi-component dish worthy of a Michelin 3-star restaurant. The recipe should feature an unusual…

GLM 4.5673 words
Michelin 3-Star Recipe: "Oceanic Symphony: Abalone & Black Truffle" Conceptual Narrative: This dish embodies the harmony between ocean and earth, celebrating the rare luxury of abalone (ocean’s opulence) and black truffle (forest’s gold).
Read the full answer
GPT-6 Sol937 words
Tidal Orchard Seared scallops · strawberry–kombu gel · white-miso and white-chocolate beurre blanc · sea-lettuce oil · buckwheat lace The unexpected pairing is scallop and strawberry. Both have a gentle sweetness, but strawberry’s acidity makes the scallop taste more distinctly of the sea.
Read the full answer

Debug This Architecture

Here's the architecture for a real-time collaborative document editor (like Google Docs): **System Overview:** - Frontend: React SPA with…

GLM 4.5847 words
Failure Modes, Race Conditions, and Scaling Bottlenecks 1. WebSocket Server Failure Issue: If a Node.js server fails, all connected clients lose real-time updates. Reconnections may route users to different servers, causing temporary data inconsistency.
Read the full answer
GPT-6 Sol1,130 words
The central flaw is that the system treats collaborative edits as independent writes to a document. They are not: edits need a shared ordering and a merge protocol. Adding API servers or read replicas will not fix that. Issue and failure mode Specific solution Trade-off Client-clock last-write-wins loses work.
Read the full answer
Our Verdict
GPT-6 Sol
GPT-6 Sol
GLM 4.5
GLM 4.5Runner-up

Not enough votes to call it. On the specs, GPT-6 Sol has the edge: newer, bigger context window.

GLM 4.5 costs 4.5x less per token.

Too close to call

Reviewing agent-written code?See a Brief PR report

API pricing

Cost per 1M tokens

GLM 4.5
Input
$0.60
3.3× cheaper
Output
$2.20
4.5× cheaper
GPT-6 Sol
Input
$2.00
Output
$10.00

GLM 4.5 is cheaper on both: 3.3× input, 4.5× output.

Where to run it

4 hosts, cheapest first

GLM 4.51 host
HostInOutContextUptime
Z.aifp8$0.60 in·$2.20 out·131k·100% up
GPT-6 Sol3 hosts
HostInOutContextUptime
Azure AI Foundry$2.00 in·$10.00 out·1.1M·96.6% upOpenAI$2.00 in·$10.00 out·1.1M·100% upAmazon Bedrock$2.20 in·$11.00 out·1.1M·99.9% up

Per million tokens. Prices and uptime via OpenRouter, checked 25 Sep 2026.

Research

What we learned reading every model

FAQ

Common questions

GLM 4.5 is developed by Zhipu AI while GPT-6 Sol is developed by OpenAI. GLM 4.5 has a 128K token context window vs GPT-6 Sol's 1.1M. You can compare their actual outputs across 20 challenges on Rival to see how they differ in practice.

It depends on your use case. GLM 4.5 and GPT-6 Sol each have strengths in different areas. Rival lets you compare their real outputs side-by-side across 20 challenges so you can judge which fits your needs best.

GLM 4.5 costs $0.6/M input tokens and GPT-6 Sol costs $2/M input tokens. GLM 4.5 is $1.40/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 4.5 and GPT-6 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.

Keep exploring

More comparisons

Against the newest arrivals

GLM 4.5 logoSolar Mini 4 logo
GLM 4.5 vs Solar Mini 4Landed Sep 2026
GPT-6 Sol logoQwen3.8 Max Prime logo
GPT-6 Sol vs Qwen3.8 Max PrimeLanded Sep 2026
GLM 4.5 logoGLM 5.3 Prime logo
GLM 4.5 vs GLM 5.3 PrimeLanded Sep 2026
GPT-6 Sol logoQwen3.8 Omni Flash logo
GPT-6 Sol vs Qwen3.8 Omni FlashLanded Sep 2026
GLM 4.5 logoCommand A+ logo
GLM 4.5 vs Command A+Landed Sep 2026
GPT-6 Sol logoClaude Opus 5.5 logo
GPT-6 Sol vs Claude Opus 5.5Landed Sep 2026
GLM 4.5 logoGPT-6 Luna Pro logo
GLM 4.5 vs GPT-6 Luna ProLanded Sep 2026
GPT-6 Sol logoGPT-6 Sol Pro logo
GPT-6 Sol vs GPT-6 Sol ProLanded Sep 2026

Same lab, same size, long tail

GLM 4.5 logoGLM 5.3 logo
GLM 4.5 vs GLM 5.3Same lab
GLM 4.5 logoGLM 5.3 Flash logo
GLM 4.5 vs GLM 5.3 FlashSame lab
GPT-6 Sol logoGPT-6 Luna Pro logo
GPT-6 Sol vs GPT-6 Luna ProSame lab
GPT-6 Sol logoGPT-6 Luna logo
GPT-6 Sol vs GPT-6 LunaSame lab
GPT-6 Sol logoClaude Sonnet 4.5 logo
GPT-6 Sol vs Claude Sonnet 4.5Same size
GLM 4.5 logoClaude Fable 5 logo
GLM 4.5 vs Claude Fable 5New provider
GLM 4.5 logoClaude Fable 5.1 logo
GLM 4.5 vs Claude Fable 5.1New provider
GPT-6 Sol logoClaude Haiku 4.5 logo
GPT-6 Sol vs Claude Haiku 4.5Same size

Model pages

GLM 4.5 logo
GLM 4.559 outputs, specs and price
GPT-6 Sol logo
GPT-6 Sol20 outputs, specs and price
Rival
How it worksPrivacyTerms
Explore all of Rival

Explore

  • Compare Models
  • All Models
  • Image Comparison
  • Audio Comparison
  • Image Generation
  • Best AI For...
  • Arena
  • API Pricing
  • Challenges

Discover

  • SubjectiveBench
  • Default Index
  • Research
  • Research downloads
  • Rival Kits
  • Find your AI taste
  • UI Glow-Up
  • VoiceLock
  • Cost Cutter
  • Agent skills
  • Benchmarks vs Vibes
  • Brief
  • Jailbreak
  • Model Updates
  • Provider Status
  • AI Creators

Connect

  • Methodology
  • Advertise
  • Partnerships
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms
  • RSS Feed