Model comparison

GLM-4.5V vs Qwen3 Coder Next

GLM-4.5V is the stronger model overall, scoring 39.2 to 33.8 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3 Coder Next costs 3.1× 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.

GLM-4.5V Z.ai (Zhipu)

39.2

Rank #158 Confirmed

Qwen3 Coder Next Alibaba (Qwen)

33.8

Rank #229 Reported

Summary

  • The widest gap is in reasoning, where GLM-4.5V leads 26.5 to 21.7.
  • Qwen3 Coder Next is cheaper at $0.12 / $0.80 per million input/output tokens, against $0.60 / $1.80 for GLM-4.5V.
  • Qwen3 Coder Next accepts more context: 262K tokens versus 64K.

Side by side

GLM-4.5V and Qwen3 Coder Next specifications
GLM-4.5VQwen3 Coder Next
ProviderZ.ai (Zhipu)Alibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index39.233.8
Released2025-08-112026-02-02
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window64K262K
Max output16K66K
Input $ / M tokens$0.60$0.12
Output $ / M tokens$1.80$0.80
Results tracked153

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

Category by category

Coding GLM-4.5V leads

GLM-4.5V: 38.9 (#152), Qwen3 Coder Next: 35.8 (#206)

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-4.5VQwen3 Coder Next
SciCode—32.3%
WeirdML—34.4%
LMArena Coding1347—

Reasoning GLM-4.5V leads

GLM-4.5V: 26.5 (#118), Qwen3 Coder Next: 21.7 (#191)

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-4.5VQwen3 Coder Next
Kagi LLM Benchmark59.8%—
CritPt—0%
LMArena Hard Prompts1335—

Math Not comparable

GLM-4.5V: 34.7 (#157), Qwen3 Coder Next: —

Math benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-4.5VQwen3 Coder Next
LMArena Math1353—

Knowledge Not comparable

GLM-4.5V: 36.8 (#155), Qwen3 Coder Next: —

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-4.5VQwen3 Coder Next
LMArena Expert1353—

Multimodal Not comparable

GLM-4.5V: 33.6 (#86), Qwen3 Coder Next: —

Multimodal benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-4.5VQwen3 Coder Next
LMArena Vision1154—

Multilingual Not comparable

GLM-4.5V: 44.9 (#172), Qwen3 Coder Next: —

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-4.5VQwen3 Coder Next
LMArena Non-English1304—
LMArena Chinese1338—
LMArena Russian1299—
LMArena Spanish1335—

Instruction Following Not comparable

GLM-4.5V: 69.4 (#170), Qwen3 Coder Next: —

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-4.5VQwen3 Coder Next
LMArena Instruction Following1311—

Long Context Not comparable

GLM-4.5V: 39.6 (#166), Qwen3 Coder Next: —

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-4.5VQwen3 Coder Next
LMArena Longer Query1305—

Writing & Preference Not comparable

GLM-4.5V: 52.7 (#162), Qwen3 Coder Next: —

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-4.5VQwen3 Coder Next
LMArena Text1333—
LMArena Creative Writing1295—
LMArena Multi-Turn1333—

Frequently asked questions

Is GLM-4.5V better than Qwen3 Coder Next?

GLM-4.5V is the stronger model overall, scoring 39.2 to 33.8 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3 Coder Next costs 3.1× 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 Qwen3 Coder Next?

Qwen3 Coder Next is cheaper. It lists at $0.12 per million input tokens and $0.80 per million output tokens; GLM-4.5V lists at $0.60 and $1.80.

Is GLM-4.5V or Qwen3 Coder Next better for coding?

GLM-4.5V scores higher on coding benchmarks: 38.9 versus 35.8 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Qwen3 Coder Next does, with 262K tokens against 64K.

How many benchmarks do GLM-4.5V and Qwen3 Coder Next share?

0 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-4.5V has 15 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3 Coder Next has 3.

Related comparisons

Go deeper