GLM 5.1 vs GPT-5.5 Pro
Compare GLM 5.1 and GPT-5.5 Pro on the metrics that decide an agent workload.
| Metric | GLM 5.1 | GPT-5.5 Pro |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Fireworks AI | OpenAI |
| Input / 1M | $1.40 | $30.00 |
| Output / 1M | $4.40 | $180.00 |
| Cache read / 1M | $0.26 (−81%) | $30.00 (−0%) |
| Reuse-adj @55% | $1.68 | $67.50 |
| Context | 203K | 1.1M |
| Cache capture | 82% | 90% |
| Warm TTFT | 130ms (−62%) | 900ms (−53%) |
| Quality index | 86 | 97 |
Teal marks the better value in each row. Reuse-adjusted assumes 55% prefix reuse and a 25% output share.
Pick GLM 5.1 when it is cheaper once prefix reuse is priced in, it answers faster on warm cache hits, it is open-weights for on-prem and regulated lanes.
Pick GPT-5.5 Pro when it scores higher on the composite quality index, it carries the larger 1.1M context window, it captures more of the available reuse.
GPT-5.5 Pro leads on quality while GLM 5.1 leads on reuse-adjusted cost. Send latency- and budget-sensitive volume to GLM 5.1 and reserve GPT-5.5 Pro for the hard requests. Zumik's aliases route between them automatically under policy.
GLM 5.1 vs GPT-5.5 Pro, answered.
Is GLM 5.1 or GPT-5.5 Pro cheaper?
At 55% prefix reuse, GLM 5.1 blends to about $1.68 per 1M tokens and GPT-5.5 Pro to about $67.50. GLM 5.1 is cheaper on that basis.
Which has the larger context window?
GPT-5.5 Pro has the larger window: 1.1M vs 203K tokens.
Which captures more reuse?
GPT-5.5 Pro shows higher measured cache capture (90% vs 82%) in the Zumik corpus.
Let an alias pick for you.
Route to whichever model wins under current policy automatically. Zumik resolves the alias to the best fit per request, so you never hard-code a loser.