Model comparison
GLM-4.5 vs Qwen3.5-Flash
GLM-4.5 and Qwen3.5-Flash score almost the same on the Noometry Index (42.0 vs 42.5), so choose on price, context window or the category you care about most.
Last verified . 18 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 18 benchmarks with published results for both. GLM-4.5 scores higher in 4 categories and Qwen3.5-Flash in 4 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in knowledge, where Qwen3.5-Flash leads 43.2 to 35.9.
- Qwen3.5-Flash is cheaper at $0.10 / $0.40 per million input/output tokens, against $0.60 / $2.20 for GLM-4.5.
- Qwen3.5-Flash 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 | Qwen3.5-Flash | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Z.ai (Zhipu) | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 42.0 | 42.5 |
| Released | 2025-07-27 | 2026-02-23 |
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |
| Context window | 131K | 1M |
| Max output | 98K | 66K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.60 | $0.10 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $2.20 | $0.40 |
| 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: 41.4 (#125), Qwen3.5-Flash: 34.2 (#242)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.5 | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1434 | 1412 |
| ALE-Bench | 344.82 | 221.8 |
| SWE-bench Verified (bash only) | 54.2% | — |
| LMArena WebDev | — | 1244 |
| WeirdML | 40.6% | — |
| AlgoTune | 1.52 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
GLM-4.5: —, Qwen3.5-Flash: —
| Benchmark | GLM-4.5 | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Vending-Bench 2 | — | 462.69 |
Reasoning Qwen3.5-Flash leads
GLM-4.5: 28.6 (#100), Qwen3.5-Flash: 33.7 (#72)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.5 | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1429 | 1403 |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 57.9% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 21% |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | — | 20% |
| DTBench | — | 82.9% |
| LMCA | — | 29.1% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 143.98 |
Math GLM-4.5 leads
GLM-4.5: 39.0 (#116), Qwen3.5-Flash: 37.4 (#158)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.5 | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1427 | 1407 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | — | 18.2% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 84.4% |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | — | 6.2% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | — | 0% |
Knowledge Qwen3.5-Flash leads
GLM-4.5: 35.9 (#179), Qwen3.5-Flash: 43.2 (#93)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.5 | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1433 | 1407 |
| GPQA Diamond | — | 82.3% |
| Humanity's Last Exam | 8.3% | — |
| SimpleQA Verified | — | 20.3% |
| Confabulations | 11.3% | — |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | — | 10.5% |
Multilingual GLM-4.5 leads
GLM-4.5: 52.8 (#77), Qwen3.5-Flash: 50.5 (#121)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.5 | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1417 | 1385 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1465 | 1446 |
| LMArena French | 1418 | 1412 |
| LMArena German | 1407 | 1390 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1415 | 1368 |
| LMArena Korean | 1380 | 1344 |
| LMArena Russian | 1414 | 1379 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1454 | 1400 |
Instruction Following GLM-4.5 leads
GLM-4.5: 74.1 (#104), Qwen3.5-Flash: 72.6 (#139)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.5 | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1404 | 1374 |
Long Context Qwen3.5-Flash leads
GLM-4.5: 38.2 (#201), Qwen3.5-Flash: 42.4 (#124)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.5 | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1412 | 1392 |
| Fiction.LiveBench | 58.3% | — |
Writing & Preference Too close to call
GLM-4.5: 57.5 (#127), Qwen3.5-Flash: 57.9 (#122)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.5 | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1430 | 1397 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1395 | 1343 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1415 | 1393 |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | 73.4% | — |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1343 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is GLM-4.5 better than Qwen3.5-Flash?
GLM-4.5 and Qwen3.5-Flash score almost the same on the Noometry Index (42.0 vs 42.5), so choose on price, context window or the category you care about most.
Which is cheaper, GLM-4.5 or Qwen3.5-Flash?
Qwen3.5-Flash is cheaper. It lists at $0.10 per million input tokens and $0.40 per million output tokens; GLM-4.5 lists at $0.60 and $2.20.
Is GLM-4.5 or Qwen3.5-Flash better for coding?
GLM-4.5 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 41.4 versus 34.2 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Qwen3.5-Flash does, with 1M tokens against 131K.
How many benchmarks do GLM-4.5 and Qwen3.5-Flash share?
18 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-4.5 has 27 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.5-Flash has 32.