Model comparison

GLM-4.5-Air vs Qwen3 14B

GLM-4.5-Air is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.9 to 35.5 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 2 shared benchmarks.

GLM-4.5-Air Z.ai (Zhipu)

38.9

Rank #177 Confirmed

Qwen3 14B Alibaba (Qwen)

35.5

Rank #225 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 2 benchmarks with published results for both. GLM-4.5-Air scores higher in 2 categories and Qwen3 14B in 3 categories; 5 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in reasoning, where GLM-4.5-Air leads 24.1 to 18.5.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is Kagi LLM Benchmark: 43% for GLM-4.5-Air and 49.1% for Qwen3 14B.
  • GLM-4.5-Air is cheaper at $0.20 / $1.10 per million input/output tokens, against $0.35 / $1.40 for Qwen3 14B.

Side by side

GLM-4.5-Air and Qwen3 14B specifications
GLM-4.5-AirQwen3 14B
ProviderZ.ai (Zhipu)Alibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index38.935.5
Released2025-07-202025-04
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window131K131K
Max output98K8K
Input $ / M tokens$0.20$0.35
Output $ / M tokens$1.10$1.40
Results tracked2712

Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry

Category by category

Coding Qwen3 14B leads

GLM-4.5-Air: 33.3 (#259), Qwen3 14B: 37.3 (#195)

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-4.5-AirQwen3 14B
SciCode—31.6%
GSO2.9%—
LMArena Coding1397—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

GLM-4.5-Air: —, Qwen3 14B: 29.6 (#83)

Agentic & Tool Use benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-4.5-AirQwen3 14B
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard—41%

Reasoning GLM-4.5-Air leads

GLM-4.5-Air: 24.1 (#166), Qwen3 14B: 18.5 (#280)

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-4.5-AirQwen3 14B
Kagi LLM Benchmark43%49.1%
CritPt—0%
Chess Puzzles—4%
LMArena Hard Prompts1379—
DTBench—64%
LMCA—18.2%
Epoch Capabilities Index—138.23
ForecastBench59.2—

Math Qwen3 14B leads

GLM-4.5-Air: 36.2 (#170), Qwen3 14B: 38.6 (#133)

Math benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-4.5-AirQwen3 14B
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025—66.4%
Omni-MATH39.1%—
LMArena Math1396—

Knowledge Qwen3 14B leads

GLM-4.5-Air: 35.0 (#191), Qwen3 14B: 39.3 (#134)

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-4.5-AirQwen3 14B
Vectara Hallucination Rate9.3%5.4%
GPQA Diamond—63.8%
Humanity's Last Exam8.1%—
MMLU-Pro76.2%—
GPQA (HELM)59.4%—
LMArena Expert1370—

Multilingual Not comparable

GLM-4.5-Air: 49.1 (#135), Qwen3 14B: —

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-4.5-AirQwen3 14B
LMArena Non-English1366—
LMArena Chinese1426—
LMArena French1399—
LMArena German1377—
LMArena Japanese1348—
LMArena Korean1308—
LMArena Russian1373—
LMArena Spanish1386—

Instruction Following Not comparable

GLM-4.5-Air: 69.6 (#171), Qwen3 14B: —

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-4.5-AirQwen3 14B
IFEval81.2%—
LMArena Instruction Following1354—

Long Context GLM-4.5-Air leads

GLM-4.5-Air: 41.6 (#135), Qwen3 14B: 38.1 (#204)

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-4.5-AirQwen3 14B
Fiction.LiveBench—62.5%
LMArena Longer Query1366—

Writing & Preference Not comparable

GLM-4.5-Air: 55.9 (#139), Qwen3 14B: —

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-4.5-AirQwen3 14B
LMArena Text1384—
LMArena Creative Writing1343—
WildBench78.9%—
LMArena Multi-Turn1371—

Frequently asked questions

Is GLM-4.5-Air better than Qwen3 14B?

GLM-4.5-Air is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.9 to 35.5 on the Noometry Index.

Which is cheaper, GLM-4.5-Air or Qwen3 14B?

GLM-4.5-Air is cheaper. It lists at $0.20 per million input tokens and $1.10 per million output tokens; Qwen3 14B lists at $0.35 and $1.40.

Is GLM-4.5-Air or Qwen3 14B better for coding?

Qwen3 14B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 37.3 versus 33.3 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Both accept 131K tokens.

How many benchmarks do GLM-4.5-Air and Qwen3 14B share?

2 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-4.5-Air has 27 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3 14B has 12.

Related comparisons

Go deeper