General intelligence (not coding) comparison: https://aibenchy.com/compare/z-ai-glm-5-medium/z-ai-glm-5-1-...
replyIs there really no rule that discourages 99% of your interactions with HN from being peddling some useless slop benchmark?
replyIf it's relevant to the discussion, I hope not.
replyI've spent probably over100 hours working on this benchmarking/site platform, and all tests are manually written. For me (and many others that reached out to me) are not useless either. I use this myself regularly when choosing and comparing new models. I honestly beleive it is providing value to the conversation.
Let me know if you know of a better platform you can use to compare models, I built this one because I didn't find any with good enough UX.
It's a great benchmark. Don't listen to the haters. This one is especially interesting.
replyhttps://aibenchy.com/compare/anthropic-claude-sonnet-4-6-med...
This one's even more interesting
replyhttps://aibenchy.com/compare/anthropic-claude-opus-4-6-mediu...
Who knew Anthropic was this far behind???
Yeah, but actually that's not a good look. Anyone who's used Gemini will know how random it is in terms of getting anything serious done, compared to the rock solid opus experience.
replyTheir benchmark is chock-full of things like that: It's deeply flawed and is essentially rating how LLMs perform if you exert yourself trying to hold them entirely the wrong way.
replyThe blog post has a benchmark comparison table with these two in it
replyThanks, I missed that. It's very interesting. They're quite close, but I found Qwen 3.6 plus was just marginally better than Kimi 2.5. But looking at the stats I'll definitely give GLM 5.1 a try now. [edit: even though looking at it, it's not cheap and has a much smaller context size.And I can't tell about tool use.]
replyCompared to Kimi 2.5 or Qwen 3.6 Plus I don't know, but I ran GLM 5 (not 5.1) side by side with Qwen 3.5 Plus and it was visibly better.
reply