Pick GLM 5.1 for long-horizon autonomous agentic engineering (up to 8-hour runs) or state-of-the-art open-weight coding (topped swe-bench pro at launch). Pick Inkling for the first model release from mira murati's thinking machines lab (ex-openai cto) - one of the most closely-watched new labs in ai or a 975b-parameter moe (41b active) with native text, image, and audio reasoning in one model. On a tight budget at scale, Inkling is the value pick.
GLM 5.1 (Z.ai, China) and Inkling (Thinking Machines Lab, US) line up two different AI ecosystems against each other — a comparison that is as much about cost philosophy and openness as raw capability. GLM 5.1 is an open-weight (MIT) Chinese coding model built for long-horizon agentic engineering, topping SWE-Bench Pro at launch while running autonomously for up to 8 hours. Inkling is mira Murati's Thinking Machines Lab debuts with Inkling - a 975B open-weight MoE with native multimodal reasoning and a dialable thinking-effort control. They diverge most on price and context window — each quantified below from the models' real specs.
Key differences
Context window: Inkling holds 5× more — 1M (~1,500 pages) vs 200K (~300 pages). But effective recall usually fades long before the advertised ceiling, so the bigger number only helps if the model reasons over it.
Recency: Inkling is the newer model by about 3 months (released July 15, 2026), usually meaning fresher training data and capabilities.
Ecosystem: this is a China-vs-US matchup — they differ in pricing philosophy, data-residency options, and tooling ecosystems, not only benchmarks.
Specifications
Spec
GLM 5.1
Inkling
Provider
Z.ai (China)
Thinking Machines Lab (US)
Released
April 7, 2026
July 15, 2026
Context window
200K (~300 pages)
1M (~1,500 pages)
Price (in/out)
$1.4/$4.4 per 1M tokens
Open weight (self-host / free)
Open weight?
Yes — self-hostable
Yes — self-hostable
Modalities
text, code
text, image, audio, code
SWE-Bench Verified
Not published
Not published
MRCR v2 @ 1M
Not published
Not published
Who wins what
Long-horizon autonomous agentic engineering (up to 8-hour runs): GLM 5.1 — GLM 5.1 lists long-horizon autonomous agentic engineering (up to 8-hour runs) among its strengths; Inkling does not.
State-of-the-art open-weight coding (topped SWE-Bench Pro at launch): GLM 5.1 — Inkling is comparatively weak here — no official hosted API price - available via third-party hosts only at launch
Sustained tool use across thousands of calls: GLM 5.1 — GLM 5.1 lists sustained tool use across thousands of calls among its strengths; Inkling does not.
The first model release from Mira Murati's Thinking Machines Lab (ex-OpenAI CTO) - one of the most closely-watched new labs in AI: Inkling — Mira Murati's Thinking Machines Lab debuts with Inkling - a 975B open-weight MoE with native multimodal reasoning and a dialable thinking-effort control — and it carries the larger 1M context.
A 975B-parameter MoE (41B active) with native text, image, and audio reasoning in one model: Inkling — GLM 5.1 is comparatively weak here — text-only, with no image, audio, or video input
A dialable 'thinking effort' knob (0.2-0.99) that lets you trade speed for depth of reasoning per-request: Inkling — Mira Murati's Thinking Machines Lab debuts with Inkling - a 975B open-weight MoE with native multimodal reasoning and a dialable thinking-effort control — and it is the newer of the two.
Lowest cost at scale: Inkling — Its weights are open, so at volume you pay for your own hardware instead of GLM 5.1's $1.4/$4.4 per 1M tokens.
Largest single-prompt input: Inkling — Its 1M window is about 5× larger than GLM 5.1's 200K, fitting roughly 1,500 pages in one prompt.
Which should you pick?
A cost-sensitive startup shipping high volume: Inkling — At Open weight (self-host / free) it undercuts GLM 5.1, and on millions of tokens that margin decides the monthly bill.
Someone analysing very long documents or codebases: Inkling — Larger 1M window fits more in one prompt.
Anyone whose priority is long-horizon autonomous agentic engineering (up to 8-hour runs): GLM 5.1 — It is specifically built for that.
Anyone whose priority is the first model release from mira murati's thinking machines lab (ex-openai cto) - one of the most closely-watched new labs in ai: Inkling — That is its strongest area.
An enterprise with regional data-residency rules: Inkling or GLM 5.1 — Origin (China vs US) affects where data is processed and which compliance regime applies — check the provider's terms for your region.
GLM 5.1: where it fits
An open-weight (MIT) Chinese coding model built for long-horizon agentic engineering, topping SWE-Bench Pro at launch while running autonomously for up to 8 hours. Released April 7, 2026 by Z.ai, it is built for long-horizon autonomous agentic engineering (up to 8-hour runs), state-of-the-art open-weight coding (topped SWE-Bench Pro at launch), sustained tool use across thousands of calls, and self-hostable under a permissive MIT license.
Its trade-offs are real: text-only, with no image, audio, or video input, and 754B-parameter MoE demands heavy GPU resources to self-host. At $1.4 in / $4.4 out per million tokens, it sits in the mid price band.
Inkling: where it fits
Mira Murati's Thinking Machines Lab debuts with Inkling - a 975B open-weight MoE with native multimodal reasoning and a dialable thinking-effort control. Released July 15, 2026 by Thinking Machines Lab, it is built for the first model release from Mira Murati's Thinking Machines Lab (ex-OpenAI CTO) - one of the most closely-watched new labs in AI, a 975B-parameter MoE (41B active) with native text, image, and audio reasoning in one model, a dialable 'thinking effort' knob (0.2-0.99) that lets you trade speed for depth of reasoning per-request, and fully open weights (Apache 2.0) at frontier scale - unusual for a model this large and this new.
Its trade-offs: a brand-new lab's first release - no multi-generation track record yet, no official hosted API price - available via third-party hosts only at launch, and independent third-party benchmark verification is still limited given how recently it shipped. As an open-weight model, its running cost is your own hardware rather than a per-token fee.
The bottom line for this matchup
This is less "which is smarter" and more "which ecosystem fits." GLM 5.1 (China) and Inkling (US) differ on pricing philosophy, data-residency, and tooling as much as on raw scores. Inkling is the cheaper option, which matters at volume. The pragmatic move is to run one real task through both and judge the outputs against your own constraints — including where your data is allowed to be processed.
Frequently asked questions
Is GLM 5.1 or Inkling better for coding?
Public SWE-Bench figures are not available for either model, so the honest test is your own repository — run an identical real bug through both. By design, GLM 5.1 leans toward long-horizon autonomous agentic engineering (up to 8-hour runs) while Inkling leans toward the first model release from mira murati's thinking machines lab (ex-openai cto) - one of the most closely-watched new labs in ai, and that positioning usually predicts which feels better on your codebase.
Which is cheaper, GLM 5.1 or Inkling?
Inkling is cheaper — $1.4/$4.4 per 1M tokens vs Open weight (self-host / free).
Which has the bigger context window?
Inkling — 1M vs 200K, about 5× larger. Useful only if the model actually reasons over the full window, which not all do.
Can I use both GLM 5.1 and Inkling together?
Yes — a multi-model platform like LumiChats gives you GLM 5.1, Inkling and 40+ others under one ₹69/day pass (about $1/day), so you can draft with one and cross-check with the other instead of buying two subscriptions.
Which is newer, GLM 5.1 or Inkling?
Inkling — released July 15, 2026, about 3 months after GLM 5.1.
GLM 5.1 vs Inkling
Z.ai · China | Thinking Machines Lab · US · Updated June 2026
Quick verdict
Pick GLM 5.1 for long-horizon autonomous agentic engineering (up to 8-hour runs) or state-of-the-art open-weight coding (topped swe-bench pro at launch). Pick Inkling for the first model release from mira murati's thinking machines lab (ex-openai cto) - one of the most closely-watched new labs in ai or a 975b-parameter moe (41b active) with native text, image, and audio reasoning in one model. On a tight budget at scale, Inkling is the value pick.
GLM 5.1 (Z.ai, China) and Inkling (Thinking Machines Lab, US) line up two different AI ecosystems against each other — a comparison that is as much about cost philosophy and openness as raw capability. GLM 5.1 is an open-weight (MIT) Chinese coding model built for long-horizon agentic engineering, topping SWE-Bench Pro at launch while running autonomously for up to 8 hours. Inkling is mira Murati's Thinking Machines Lab debuts with Inkling - a 975B open-weight MoE with native multimodal reasoning and a dialable thinking-effort control. They diverge most on price and context window — each quantified below from the models' real specs.
Key differences at a glance
▸Context window: Inkling holds 5× more — 1M (~1,500 pages) vs 200K (~300 pages). But effective recall usually fades long before the advertised ceiling, so the bigger number only helps if the model reasons over it.
▸Recency: Inkling is the newer model by about 3 months (released July 15, 2026), usually meaning fresher training data and capabilities.
▸Ecosystem: this is a China-vs-US matchup — they differ in pricing philosophy, data-residency options, and tooling ecosystems, not only benchmarks.
Side-by-side specs
Spec
GLM 5.1
Inkling
Provider
Z.ai (China)
Thinking Machines Lab (US)
Released
April 7, 2026
July 15, 2026
Context window
200K (~300 pages)
1M (~1,500 pages)
Price (in/out)
$1.4/$4.4 per 1M tokens
Open weight (self-host / free)
Open weight?
Yes — self-hostable
Yes — self-hostable
Modalities
text, code
text, image, audio, code
SWE-Bench Verified
Not published
Not published
MRCR v2 @ 1M
Not published
Not published
Who wins what
Long-horizon autonomous agentic engineering (up to 8-hour runs)
GLM 5.1
GLM 5.1 lists long-horizon autonomous agentic engineering (up to 8-hour runs) among its strengths; Inkling does not.
State-of-the-art open-weight coding (topped SWE-Bench Pro at launch)
GLM 5.1
Inkling is comparatively weak here — no official hosted API price - available via third-party hosts only at launch
Sustained tool use across thousands of calls
GLM 5.1
GLM 5.1 lists sustained tool use across thousands of calls among its strengths; Inkling does not.
The first model release from Mira Murati's Thinking Machines Lab (ex-OpenAI CTO) - one of the most closely-watched new labs in AI
Inkling
Mira Murati's Thinking Machines Lab debuts with Inkling - a 975B open-weight MoE with native multimodal reasoning and a dialable thinking-effort control — and it carries the larger 1M context.
A 975B-parameter MoE (41B active) with native text, image, and audio reasoning in one model
Inkling
GLM 5.1 is comparatively weak here — text-only, with no image, audio, or video input
A dialable 'thinking effort' knob (0.2-0.99) that lets you trade speed for depth of reasoning per-request
Inkling
Mira Murati's Thinking Machines Lab debuts with Inkling - a 975B open-weight MoE with native multimodal reasoning and a dialable thinking-effort control — and it is the newer of the two.
Lowest cost at scale
Inkling
Its weights are open, so at volume you pay for your own hardware instead of GLM 5.1's $1.4/$4.4 per 1M tokens.
Largest single-prompt input
Inkling
Its 1M window is about 5× larger than GLM 5.1's 200K, fitting roughly 1,500 pages in one prompt.
Which should you pick?
A cost-sensitive startup shipping high volume
→ Inkling
At Open weight (self-host / free) it undercuts GLM 5.1, and on millions of tokens that margin decides the monthly bill.
Someone analysing very long documents or codebases
→ Inkling
Larger 1M window fits more in one prompt.
Anyone whose priority is long-horizon autonomous agentic engineering (up to 8-hour runs)
→ GLM 5.1
It is specifically built for that.
Anyone whose priority is the first model release from mira murati's thinking machines lab (ex-openai cto) - one of the most closely-watched new labs in ai
→ Inkling
That is its strongest area.
An enterprise with regional data-residency rules
→ Inkling or GLM 5.1
Origin (China vs US) affects where data is processed and which compliance regime applies — check the provider's terms for your region.
GLM 5.1: where it fits
An open-weight (MIT) Chinese coding model built for long-horizon agentic engineering, topping SWE-Bench Pro at launch while running autonomously for up to 8 hours. Released April 7, 2026 by Z.ai, it is built for long-horizon autonomous agentic engineering (up to 8-hour runs), state-of-the-art open-weight coding (topped SWE-Bench Pro at launch), sustained tool use across thousands of calls, and self-hostable under a permissive MIT license.
Its trade-offs are real: text-only, with no image, audio, or video input, and 754B-parameter MoE demands heavy GPU resources to self-host. At $1.4 in / $4.4 out per million tokens, it sits in the mid price band.
Inkling: where it fits
Mira Murati's Thinking Machines Lab debuts with Inkling - a 975B open-weight MoE with native multimodal reasoning and a dialable thinking-effort control. Released July 15, 2026 by Thinking Machines Lab, it is built for the first model release from Mira Murati's Thinking Machines Lab (ex-OpenAI CTO) - one of the most closely-watched new labs in AI, a 975B-parameter MoE (41B active) with native text, image, and audio reasoning in one model, a dialable 'thinking effort' knob (0.2-0.99) that lets you trade speed for depth of reasoning per-request, and fully open weights (Apache 2.0) at frontier scale - unusual for a model this large and this new.
Its trade-offs: a brand-new lab's first release - no multi-generation track record yet, no official hosted API price - available via third-party hosts only at launch, and independent third-party benchmark verification is still limited given how recently it shipped. As an open-weight model, its running cost is your own hardware rather than a per-token fee.
The bottom line for this matchup
This is less "which is smarter" and more "which ecosystem fits." GLM 5.1 (China) and Inkling (US) differ on pricing philosophy, data-residency, and tooling as much as on raw scores. Inkling is the cheaper option, which matters at volume. The pragmatic move is to run one real task through both and judge the outputs against your own constraints — including where your data is allowed to be processed.
Want both GLM 5.1 and Inkling without two subscriptions? LumiChats gives you these plus 40+ models under one ₹69/day pass (about $1/day) — draft with one, cross-check with the other.
Public SWE-Bench figures are not available for either model, so the honest test is your own repository — run an identical real bug through both. By design, GLM 5.1 leans toward long-horizon autonomous agentic engineering (up to 8-hour runs) while Inkling leans toward the first model release from mira murati's thinking machines lab (ex-openai cto) - one of the most closely-watched new labs in ai, and that positioning usually predicts which feels better on your codebase.
Which is cheaper, GLM 5.1 or Inkling?
Inkling is cheaper — $1.4/$4.4 per 1M tokens vs Open weight (self-host / free).
Which has the bigger context window?
Inkling — 1M vs 200K, about 5× larger. Useful only if the model actually reasons over the full window, which not all do.
Can I use both GLM 5.1 and Inkling together?
Yes — a multi-model platform like LumiChats gives you GLM 5.1, Inkling and 40+ others under one ₹69/day pass (about $1/day), so you can draft with one and cross-check with the other instead of buying two subscriptions.
Which is newer, GLM 5.1 or Inkling?
Inkling — released July 15, 2026, about 3 months after GLM 5.1.
Specifications and benchmarks reflect publicly reported figures as of June 2026 and may change as providers release updates. Always verify on your own workload.