Model comparison
GLM-4.5V vs Qwen2.5-Max
GLM-4.5V and Qwen2.5-Max score almost the same on the Noometry Index (39.8 vs 40.7), so choose on price, context window or the category you care about most.
Last verified . 13 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 13 benchmarks with published results for both. GLM-4.5V scores higher in 3 categories and Qwen2.5-Max in 5 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in multilingual, where Qwen2.5-Max leads 48.1 to 44.6.
- GLM-4.5V has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| GLM-4.5V | Qwen2.5-Max | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Z.ai (Zhipu) | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 39.8 | 40.7 |
| Released | 2025-08-11 | 2025-01-25 |
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |
| Context window | 64K | — |
| Max output | 16K | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.60 | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | $1.80 | — |
| Results tracked | 15 | 27 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Qwen2.5-Max leads
GLM-4.5V: 39.5 (#155), Qwen2.5-Max: 41.8 (#117)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.5V | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1347 | 1359 |
| LiveBench Coding | — | 64.4% |
Reasoning GLM-4.5V leads
GLM-4.5V: 27.4 (#119), Qwen2.5-Max: 25.6 (#147)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.5V | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1334 | 1360 |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 59.8% | — |
| LiveBench Reasoning | — | 51.4% |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | — | 67.9% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 132.53 |
| LiveBench | — | 62.3% |
Math Too close to call
GLM-4.5V: 37.4 (#159), Qwen2.5-Max: 36.9 (#162)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.5V | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1354 | 1369 |
| LiveBench Math | — | 58.4% |
Knowledge GLM-4.5V leads
GLM-4.5V: 37.5 (#156), Qwen2.5-Max: 35.3 (#186)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.5V | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1353 | 1337 |
| Confabulations | — | 21.8% |
Multimodal Not comparable
GLM-4.5V: 34.3 (#92), Qwen2.5-Max: —
| Benchmark | GLM-4.5V | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1154 | — |
Multilingual Qwen2.5-Max leads
GLM-4.5V: 44.6 (#177), Qwen2.5-Max: 48.1 (#146)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.5V | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1303 | 1352 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1337 | 1382 |
| LMArena Russian | 1298 | 1353 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1336 | 1377 |
| LMArena French | — | 1396 |
| LMArena German | — | 1350 |
| LMArena Japanese | — | 1300 |
| LMArena Korean | — | 1304 |
Instruction Following Qwen2.5-Max leads
GLM-4.5V: 69.2 (#175), Qwen2.5-Max: 71.3 (#152)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.5V | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1311 | 1335 |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | — | 75.3% |
Long Context Qwen2.5-Max leads
GLM-4.5V: 39.6 (#171), Qwen2.5-Max: 41.4 (#142)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.5V | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1304 | 1358 |
Writing & Preference Qwen2.5-Max leads
GLM-4.5V: 52.5 (#170), Qwen2.5-Max: 55.4 (#146)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.5V | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1333 | 1367 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1295 | 1339 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1332 | 1364 |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | — | 72.9% |
| LiveBench Language | — | 56.3% |
Frequently asked questions
Is GLM-4.5V better than Qwen2.5-Max?
GLM-4.5V and Qwen2.5-Max score almost the same on the Noometry Index (39.8 vs 40.7), so choose on price, context window or the category you care about most.
Is GLM-4.5V or Qwen2.5-Max better for coding?
Qwen2.5-Max scores higher on coding benchmarks: 41.8 versus 39.5 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do GLM-4.5V and Qwen2.5-Max share?
13 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-4.5V has 15 scored results on Noometry and Qwen2.5-Max has 27.