Model comparison
GLM-4.5V vs Qwen Turbo
GLM-4.5V is the stronger model overall, scoring 39.8 to 27.1 on the Noometry Index. Qwen Turbo costs 10× less per token, which makes it the better buy when GLM-4.5V's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 0 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- The widest gap is in math, where GLM-4.5V leads 37.4 to 15.3.
- Qwen Turbo is cheaper at $0.05 / $0.20 per million input/output tokens, against $0.60 / $1.80 for GLM-4.5V.
- Qwen Turbo accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 64K.
- GLM-4.5V has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| GLM-4.5V | Qwen Turbo | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Z.ai (Zhipu) | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 39.8 | 27.1 |
| Released | 2025-08-11 | 2024-11-01 |
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |
| Context window | 64K | 1M |
| Max output | 16K | 16K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.60 | $0.05 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $1.80 | $0.20 |
| Results tracked | 15 | 3 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Not comparable
GLM-4.5V: 39.5 (#155), Qwen Turbo: —
| Benchmark | GLM-4.5V | Qwen Turbo |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1347 | — |
Reasoning Not comparable
GLM-4.5V: 27.4 (#119), Qwen Turbo: —
| Benchmark | GLM-4.5V | Qwen Turbo |
|---|---|---|
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 59.8% | — |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1334 | — |
Math GLM-4.5V leads
GLM-4.5V: 37.4 (#159), Qwen Turbo: 15.3 (#297)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.5V | Qwen Turbo |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 6.1% |
| LMArena Math | 1354 | — |
| MATH Level 5 | — | 56.2% |
Knowledge GLM-4.5V leads
GLM-4.5V: 37.5 (#156), Qwen Turbo: 22.2 (#272)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.5V | Qwen Turbo |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | — | 41.8% |
| LMArena Expert | 1353 | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
GLM-4.5V: 34.3 (#92), Qwen Turbo: —
| Benchmark | GLM-4.5V | Qwen Turbo |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1154 | — |
Multilingual Not comparable
GLM-4.5V: 44.6 (#177), Qwen Turbo: —
| Benchmark | GLM-4.5V | Qwen Turbo |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1303 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 1337 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1298 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1336 | — |
Instruction Following Not comparable
GLM-4.5V: 69.2 (#175), Qwen Turbo: —
| Benchmark | GLM-4.5V | Qwen Turbo |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1311 | — |
Long Context Not comparable
GLM-4.5V: 39.6 (#171), Qwen Turbo: —
| Benchmark | GLM-4.5V | Qwen Turbo |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1304 | — |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
GLM-4.5V: 52.5 (#170), Qwen Turbo: —
| Benchmark | GLM-4.5V | Qwen Turbo |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1333 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1295 | — |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1332 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is GLM-4.5V better than Qwen Turbo?
GLM-4.5V is the stronger model overall, scoring 39.8 to 27.1 on the Noometry Index. Qwen Turbo costs 10× less per token, which makes it the better buy when GLM-4.5V's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, GLM-4.5V or Qwen Turbo?
Qwen Turbo is cheaper. It lists at $0.05 per million input tokens and $0.20 per million output tokens; GLM-4.5V lists at $0.60 and $1.80.
Which has the bigger context window?
Qwen Turbo does, with 1M tokens against 64K.
How many benchmarks do GLM-4.5V and Qwen Turbo share?
0 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-4.5V has 15 scored results on Noometry and Qwen Turbo has 3.