GLM 5.1 vs Step 5 Preview
Z.ai · China | StepFun · China · 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 Step 5 Preview for sparse moe architecture — 600b total parameters, only 27b active per token — built for long-horizon agentic work across large codebases and documents or 1m-token context window (64k max output) at $1/$2.70 per million tokens, among the cheapest frontier-scale context windows available. Choose GLM 5.1 if you need self-hosting or data privacy; Step 5 Preview if you want a managed API.
GLM 5.1 (Z.ai) and Step 5 Preview (StepFun) are two of the models people most often weigh against each other in 2026. 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. Step 5 Preview is stepFun's September 20, 2026 flagship preview — a 600B-parameter sparse MoE model (27B active) with a 1M-token context window at $1/$2.70 per million tokens, open weights promised for mid-October. They diverge most on price, context window and open vs. closed weights — each quantified below from the models' real specs.
Key differences at a glance
- ▸Price: Step 5 Preview is about 1.4× cheaper on input ($1/$2.7 per 1M tokens vs $1.4/$4.4 per 1M tokens) — modest, but it adds up at steady volume.
- ▸Context window: Step 5 Preview holds 5× more — 1M tokens (~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: Step 5 Preview is the newer model by about 6 months (released September 20, 2026), usually meaning fresher training data and capabilities.
Side-by-side specs
| Spec | GLM 5.1 | Step 5 Preview |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Z.ai (China) | StepFun (China) |
| Released | April 7, 2026 | September 20, 2026 |
| Context window | 200K (~300 pages) | 1M tokens (~1,500 pages) |
| Price (in/out) | $1.4/$4.4 per 1M tokens | $1/$2.7 per 1M tokens |
| Open weight? | Yes — self-hostable | No — API only |
| Modalities | text, code | text, image, 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
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 — and its weights are open while Step 5 Preview is API-only.
State-of-the-art open-weight coding (topped SWE-Bench Pro at launch)
GLM 5.1
Open weights make this possible at all — Step 5 Preview is API-only, so it cannot leave the vendor's servers.
Sustained tool use across thousands of calls
GLM 5.1
GLM 5.1 lists sustained tool use across thousands of calls among its strengths; Step 5 Preview does not.
Sparse MoE architecture — 600B total parameters, only 27B active per token — built for long-horizon agentic work across large codebases and documents
Step 5 Preview
Its 1M tokens window holds about 5× more than GLM 5.1's 200K in a single prompt.
1M-token context window (64K max output) at $1/$2.70 per million tokens, among the cheapest frontier-scale context windows available
Step 5 Preview
At $1/$2.7 per 1M tokens it undercuts GLM 5.1 ($1.4/$4.4 per 1M tokens), and that gap compounds at volume.
67.7% on DeepSWE v1.1, ahead of open-weight rivals Kimi K3 (67.5%) and GLM-5.3 (66.9%)
Step 5 Preview
StepFun's September 20, 2026 flagship preview — a 600B-parameter sparse MoE model (27B active) with a 1M-token context window at $1/$2.70 per million tokens, open weights promised for mid-October — and it runs cheaper at $1/$2.7 per 1M tokens.
Lowest cost at scale
Step 5 Preview
At $1/$2.7 per 1M tokens, it is the cheaper of the two — the gap dominates the bill on high-volume workloads.
Largest single-prompt input
Step 5 Preview
Its 1M tokens 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
→ Step 5 Preview
At $1/$2.7 per 1M tokens it undercuts GLM 5.1, and on millions of tokens that margin decides the monthly bill.
Someone analysing very long documents or codebases
→ Step 5 Preview
Larger 1M tokens window fits more in one prompt.
A team with data-privacy or self-hosting needs
→ GLM 5.1
Open weights let you run it on your own hardware; Step 5 Preview is API-only.
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 sparse moe architecture — 600b total parameters, only 27b active per token — built for long-horizon agentic work across large codebases and documents
→ Step 5 Preview
That is its strongest area.
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.
Step 5 Preview: where it fits
StepFun's September 20, 2026 flagship preview — a 600B-parameter sparse MoE model (27B active) with a 1M-token context window at $1/$2.70 per million tokens, open weights promised for mid-October. Released September 20, 2026 by StepFun, it is built for sparse MoE architecture — 600B total parameters, only 27B active per token — built for long-horizon agentic work across large codebases and documents, 1M-token context window (64K max output) at $1/$2.70 per million tokens, among the cheapest frontier-scale context windows available, 67.7% on DeepSWE v1.1, ahead of open-weight rivals Kimi K3 (67.5%) and GLM-5.3 (66.9%), and scores 44 on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index, ranking 27th of 653 models tracked.
Its trade-offs: trails closed frontier models on coding — 67.7% on DeepSWE v1.1 vs GPT-6 Astra's 74.1% and Claude Opus 5's 74.0%, open weights were promised for October 15, 2026 but hadn't shipped as of this writing — API-only for now despite the open-weight roadmap, a 'Preview' release, not StepFun's finished flagship — positioning and pricing may change once weights ship, and stepCodeBench and DeepSWE figures are StepFun's own reported numbers, not yet independently reproduced at scale. At $1 in / $2.7 out per million tokens, it sits in the budget price band.
The bottom line for this matchup
The defining split here is open vs. closed. GLM 5.1 gives you weights you control — self-host it, fine-tune it, keep data in-house, pay only for hardware. Step 5 Preview gives you a managed, always-updated API with no infrastructure to run. Teams with GPUs, privacy requirements, or huge volume often favour the open model; teams that want zero ops and the latest capabilities favour the closed one. Capability is close enough that this operational question, not the benchmark, usually decides it.
Want both GLM 5.1 and Step 5 Preview 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.
See pricingFrequently asked questions
Is GLM 5.1 or Step 5 Preview 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 Step 5 Preview leans toward sparse moe architecture — 600b total parameters, only 27b active per token — built for long-horizon agentic work across large codebases and documents, and that positioning usually predicts which feels better on your codebase.
Which is cheaper, GLM 5.1 or Step 5 Preview?
GLM 5.1 is open-weight, so self-hosting means no per-token fee (you pay for hardware instead), while Step 5 Preview is API-metered at $1/$2.7 per 1M tokens. For most teams without GPUs, the API model is cheaper to start; at very high volume, self-hosting can win.
Which has the bigger context window?
Step 5 Preview — 1M tokens 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 Step 5 Preview together?
Yes — a multi-model platform like LumiChats gives you GLM 5.1, Step 5 Preview 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 Step 5 Preview?
Step 5 Preview — released September 20, 2026, about 6 months after GLM 5.1.
Related comparisons
Specifications and benchmarks reflect publicly reported figures as of June 2026 and may change as providers release updates. Always verify on your own workload.