Model comparison

GLM-4.5V vs Qwen Max

GLM-4.5V is the stronger model overall, scoring 39.8 to 34.7 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 13 shared benchmarks.

GLM-4.5V Z.ai (Zhipu)

39.8

Rank #158 Confirmed

Qwen Max Alibaba (Qwen)

34.7

Rank #230 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 13 benchmarks with published results for both. GLM-4.5V scores higher in 8 categories and Qwen Max in 0 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in math, where GLM-4.5V leads 37.4 to 22.3.
  • GLM-4.5V is cheaper at $0.60 / $1.80 per million input/output tokens, against $1.60 / $6.40 for Qwen Max.
  • GLM-4.5V accepts more context: 64K tokens versus 33K.
  • GLM-4.5V has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

GLM-4.5V and Qwen Max specifications
GLM-4.5VQwen Max
ProviderZ.ai (Zhipu)Alibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index39.834.7
Released2025-08-112024-04-03
WeightsOpenProprietary
Context window64K33K
Max output16K8K
Input $ / M tokens$0.60$1.60
Output $ / M tokens$1.80$6.40
Results tracked1523

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

Category by category

Coding GLM-4.5V leads

GLM-4.5V: 39.5 (#155), Qwen Max: 30.7 (#292)

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-4.5VQwen Max
LMArena Coding13471288
Aider Polyglot—21.8%

Reasoning GLM-4.5V leads

GLM-4.5V: 27.4 (#119), Qwen Max: 25.1 (#151)

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-4.5VQwen Max
LMArena Hard Prompts13341269
Kagi LLM Benchmark59.8%—

Math GLM-4.5V leads

GLM-4.5V: 37.4 (#159), Qwen Max: 22.3 (#276)

Math benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-4.5VQwen Max
LMArena Math13541275
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025—16.1%
MATH Level 5—67.2%
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)—1%

Knowledge GLM-4.5V leads

GLM-4.5V: 37.5 (#156), Qwen Max: 30.3 (#228)

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-4.5VQwen Max
LMArena Expert13531248
GPQA Diamond—56.1%

Multimodal Not comparable

GLM-4.5V: 34.3 (#92), Qwen Max: —

Multimodal benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-4.5VQwen Max
LMArena Vision1154—

Multilingual GLM-4.5V leads

GLM-4.5V: 44.6 (#177), Qwen Max: 41.8 (#202)

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-4.5VQwen Max
LMArena Non-English13031263
LMArena Chinese13371254
LMArena Russian12981274
LMArena Spanish13361290
LMArena French—1330
LMArena German—1254
LMArena Japanese—1205
LMArena Korean—1142

Instruction Following GLM-4.5V leads

GLM-4.5V: 69.2 (#175), Qwen Max: 66.5 (#208)

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-4.5VQwen Max
LMArena Instruction Following13111262

Long Context Too close to call

GLM-4.5V: 39.6 (#171), Qwen Max: 39.4 (#180)

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-4.5VQwen Max
LMArena Longer Query13041288
Fiction.LiveBench—66.7%

Writing & Preference GLM-4.5V leads

GLM-4.5V: 52.5 (#170), Qwen Max: 47.8 (#205)

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-4.5VQwen Max
LMArena Text13331282
LMArena Creative Writing12951248
LMArena Multi-Turn13321277

Frequently asked questions

Is GLM-4.5V better than Qwen Max?

GLM-4.5V is the stronger model overall, scoring 39.8 to 34.7 on the Noometry Index.

Which is cheaper, GLM-4.5V or Qwen Max?

GLM-4.5V is cheaper. It lists at $0.60 per million input tokens and $1.80 per million output tokens; Qwen Max lists at $1.60 and $6.40.

Is GLM-4.5V or Qwen Max better for coding?

GLM-4.5V scores higher on coding benchmarks: 39.5 versus 30.7 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

GLM-4.5V does, with 64K tokens against 33K.

How many benchmarks do GLM-4.5V and Qwen Max share?

13 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-4.5V has 15 scored results on Noometry and Qwen Max has 23.

Related comparisons

Go deeper