Noometry

Model comparison

GLM-4.5 vs Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct

GLM-4.5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.0 to 29.9 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 1 shared benchmarks.

GLM-4.5 Z.ai (Zhipu)

42.0

Rank #122 Confirmed

Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct Alibaba (Qwen)

29.9

Rank #302 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 1 benchmark with published results for both. GLM-4.5 scores higher in 1 category and Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct in 0 categories; one gap is clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in reasoning, where GLM-4.5 leads 28.6 to 20.7.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is Kagi LLM Benchmark: 57.9% for GLM-4.5 and 36% for Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct.
  • GLM-4.5 is cheaper at $0.60 / $2.20 per million input/output tokens, against $2.80 / $8.40 for Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct.

Side by side

GLM-4.5Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct
ProviderZ.ai (Zhipu)Alibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index42.029.9
Released2025-07-272024-09
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window131K131K
Max output98K8K
Input $ / M tokens$0.60$2.80
Output $ / M tokens$2.20$8.40
Results tracked276

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

Category by category

Coding Not comparable

GLM-4.5: 41.4 (#125), Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct: —

BenchmarkGLM-4.5Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct
SWE-bench Verified (bash only)54.2%—
WeirdML40.6%—
LMArena Coding1434—
ALE-Bench344.82—
AlgoTune1.52—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

GLM-4.5: —, Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct: 18.6 (#144)

BenchmarkGLM-4.5Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct
OSWorld—5%

Reasoning GLM-4.5 leads

GLM-4.5: 28.6 (#100), Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct: 20.7 (#233)

BenchmarkGLM-4.5Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct
Kagi LLM Benchmark57.9%36%
LMArena Hard Prompts1429—

Math Not comparable

GLM-4.5: 39.0 (#116), Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct: —

BenchmarkGLM-4.5Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct
LMArena Math1427—

Knowledge Not comparable

GLM-4.5: 35.9 (#179), Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct: —

BenchmarkGLM-4.5Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct
Humanity's Last Exam8.3%—
Confabulations11.3%—
LMArena Expert1433—

Multimodal Not comparable

GLM-4.5: —, Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct: 33.5 (#97)

BenchmarkGLM-4.5Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct
LMArena Vision—1107
Video-MME—73.5%
GeoBench—62%
SpatialViz-Bench—33.3%

Multilingual Not comparable

GLM-4.5: 52.8 (#77), Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct: —

BenchmarkGLM-4.5Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct
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), Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct: —

BenchmarkGLM-4.5Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct
LMArena Instruction Following1404—

Long Context Not comparable

GLM-4.5: 38.2 (#201), Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct: —

BenchmarkGLM-4.5Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct
Fiction.LiveBench58.3%—
LMArena Longer Query1412—

Writing & Preference Not comparable

GLM-4.5: 57.5 (#127), Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct: —

BenchmarkGLM-4.5Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct
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 Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct?

GLM-4.5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.0 to 29.9 on the Noometry Index.

Which is cheaper, GLM-4.5 or Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct?

GLM-4.5 is cheaper. It lists at $0.60 per million input tokens and $2.20 per million output tokens; Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct lists at $2.80 and $8.40.

Which has the bigger context window?

Both accept 131K tokens.

How many benchmarks do GLM-4.5 and Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct share?

1 benchmark has published results for both models. GLM-4.5 has 27 scored results on Noometry and Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct has 6.

Related comparisons

Go deeper