Model comparison
GLM-4.5 vs Qwen3-30B-A3B
GLM-4.5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.4 to 38.5 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3-30B-A3B costs 4.7× less per token, which makes it the better buy when GLM-4.5's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 22 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 22 benchmarks with published results for both. GLM-4.5 scores higher in 7 categories and Qwen3-30B-A3B in 1 category; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in long context, where GLM-4.5 leads 38.2 to 31.0.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is Fiction.LiveBench: 58.3% for GLM-4.5 and 40.6% for Qwen3-30B-A3B.
- Qwen3-30B-A3B is cheaper at $0.12 / $0.50 per million input/output tokens, against $0.60 / $2.20 for GLM-4.5.
- GLM-4.5 accepts more context: 131K tokens versus 41K.
Side by side
| GLM-4.5 | Qwen3-30B-A3B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Z.ai (Zhipu) | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 41.4 | 38.5 |
| Released | 2025-07-27 | 2025-04-28 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | 131K | 41K |
| Max output | 98K | 16K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.60 | $0.12 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $2.20 | $0.50 |
| Results tracked | 27 | 32 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding GLM-4.5 leads
GLM-4.5: 41.1 (#121), Qwen3-30B-A3B: 37.0 (#188)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.5 | Qwen3-30B-A3B |
|---|---|---|
| WeirdML | 40.6% | 29.8% |
| LMArena Coding | 1434 | 1416 |
| SWE-bench Verified (bash only) | 54.2% | — |
| SciCode | — | 33.3% |
| ALE-Bench | 344.82 | — |
| AlgoTune | 1.52 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
GLM-4.5: —, Qwen3-30B-A3B: 29.5 (#75)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.5 | Qwen3-30B-A3B |
|---|---|---|
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | — | 41.4% |
Reasoning GLM-4.5 leads
GLM-4.5: 27.7 (#99), Qwen3-30B-A3B: 21.6 (#193)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.5 | Qwen3-30B-A3B |
|---|---|---|
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 57.9% | 54.9% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1430 | 1398 |
| CritPt | — | 0.3% |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 8% |
| DTBench | — | 69.3% |
| LMCA | — | 22.4% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 139.63 |
Math Too close to call
GLM-4.5: 36.3 (#119), Qwen3-30B-A3B: 36.0 (#133)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.5 | Qwen3-30B-A3B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1427 | 1394 |
| MathArena Final-Answer Competitions | — | 47.8% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 70.3% |
Knowledge Qwen3-30B-A3B leads
GLM-4.5: 35.5 (#172), Qwen3-30B-A3B: 41.7 (#96)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.5 | Qwen3-30B-A3B |
|---|---|---|
| Confabulations | 11.3% | 12.3% |
| LMArena Expert | 1433 | 1395 |
| GPQA Diamond | — | 70.1% |
| Humanity's Last Exam | 8.3% | — |
Multilingual GLM-4.5 leads
GLM-4.5: 53.0 (#74), Qwen3-30B-A3B: 49.8 (#126)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.5 | Qwen3-30B-A3B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1417 | 1372 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1465 | 1434 |
| LMArena French | 1423 | 1419 |
| LMArena German | 1406 | 1379 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1416 | 1338 |
| LMArena Korean | 1382 | 1333 |
| LMArena Russian | 1414 | 1369 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1454 | 1403 |
Instruction Following GLM-4.5 leads
GLM-4.5: 74.3 (#100), Qwen3-30B-A3B: 72.2 (#137)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.5 | Qwen3-30B-A3B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1405 | 1364 |
Long Context GLM-4.5 leads
GLM-4.5: 38.2 (#196), Qwen3-30B-A3B: 31.0 (#278)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.5 | Qwen3-30B-A3B |
|---|---|---|
| Fiction.LiveBench | 58.3% | 40.6% |
| LMArena Longer Query | 1413 | 1379 |
Writing & Preference GLM-4.5 leads
GLM-4.5: 57.7 (#121), Qwen3-30B-A3B: 55.9 (#138)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.5 | Qwen3-30B-A3B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1430 | 1384 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1395 | 1318 |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | 73.4% | 75.3% |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1415 | 1378 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1343 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is GLM-4.5 better than Qwen3-30B-A3B?
GLM-4.5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.4 to 38.5 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3-30B-A3B costs 4.7× 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 Qwen3-30B-A3B?
Qwen3-30B-A3B is cheaper. It lists at $0.12 per million input tokens and $0.50 per million output tokens; GLM-4.5 lists at $0.60 and $2.20.
Is GLM-4.5 or Qwen3-30B-A3B better for coding?
GLM-4.5 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 41.1 versus 37.0 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
GLM-4.5 does, with 131K tokens against 41K.
How many benchmarks do GLM-4.5 and Qwen3-30B-A3B share?
22 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-4.5 has 27 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3-30B-A3B has 32.