Model comparison

GLM-4.5 vs Qwen Turbo

GLM-4.5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.0 to 27.1 on the Noometry Index. Qwen Turbo costs 11× less per token, which makes it the better buy when GLM-4.5's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Last verified . 0 shared benchmarks.

GLM-4.5 Z.ai (Zhipu)

42.0

Rank #122 Confirmed

Qwen Turbo Alibaba (Qwen)

27.1

Rank #335 Reported

Summary

  • The widest gap is in math, where GLM-4.5 leads 39.0 to 15.3.
  • Qwen Turbo is cheaper at $0.05 / $0.20 per million input/output tokens, against $0.60 / $2.20 for GLM-4.5.
  • Qwen Turbo accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 131K.
  • GLM-4.5 has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

GLM-4.5 and Qwen Turbo specifications
GLM-4.5Qwen Turbo
ProviderZ.ai (Zhipu)Alibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index42.027.1
Released2025-07-272024-11-01
WeightsOpenProprietary
Context window131K1M
Max output98K16K
Input $ / M tokens$0.60$0.05
Output $ / M tokens$2.20$0.20
Results tracked273

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

Category by category

Coding Not comparable

GLM-4.5: 41.4 (#125), Qwen Turbo: —

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-4.5Qwen Turbo
SWE-bench Verified (bash only)54.2%—
WeirdML40.6%—
LMArena Coding1434—
ALE-Bench344.82—
AlgoTune1.52—

Reasoning Not comparable

GLM-4.5: 28.6 (#100), Qwen Turbo: —

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-4.5Qwen Turbo
Kagi LLM Benchmark57.9%—
LMArena Hard Prompts1429—

Math GLM-4.5 leads

GLM-4.5: 39.0 (#116), Qwen Turbo: 15.3 (#297)

Math benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-4.5Qwen Turbo
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025—6.1%
LMArena Math1427—
MATH Level 5—56.2%

Knowledge GLM-4.5 leads

GLM-4.5: 35.9 (#179), Qwen Turbo: 22.2 (#272)

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-4.5Qwen Turbo
GPQA Diamond—41.8%
Humanity's Last Exam8.3%—
Confabulations11.3%—
LMArena Expert1433—

Multilingual Not comparable

GLM-4.5: 52.8 (#77), Qwen Turbo: —

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-4.5Qwen Turbo
LMArena Non-English1417—
LMArena Chinese1465—
LMArena French1418—
LMArena German1407—
LMArena Japanese1415—
LMArena Korean1380—
LMArena Russian1414—
LMArena Spanish1454—

Instruction Following Not comparable

GLM-4.5: 74.1 (#104), Qwen Turbo: —

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-4.5Qwen Turbo
LMArena Instruction Following1404—

Long Context Not comparable

GLM-4.5: 38.2 (#201), Qwen Turbo: —

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-4.5Qwen Turbo
Fiction.LiveBench58.3%—
LMArena Longer Query1412—

Writing & Preference Not comparable

GLM-4.5: 57.5 (#127), Qwen Turbo: —

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-4.5Qwen Turbo
LMArena Text1430—
LMArena Creative Writing1395—
Short-Story Creative Writing73.4%—
EQ-Bench Creative Writing1343—
LMArena Multi-Turn1415—

Frequently asked questions

Is GLM-4.5 better than Qwen Turbo?

GLM-4.5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.0 to 27.1 on the Noometry Index. Qwen Turbo costs 11× less per token, which makes it the better buy when GLM-4.5's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Which is cheaper, GLM-4.5 or Qwen Turbo?

Qwen Turbo is cheaper. It lists at $0.05 per million input tokens and $0.20 per million output tokens; GLM-4.5 lists at $0.60 and $2.20.

Which has the bigger context window?

Qwen Turbo does, with 1M tokens against 131K.

How many benchmarks do GLM-4.5 and Qwen Turbo share?

0 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-4.5 has 27 scored results on Noometry and Qwen Turbo has 3.

Related comparisons

Go deeper