Model comparison
GLM-5.1 vs Qwen-14B
GLM-5.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 47.6 to 30.8 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 11 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 11 benchmarks with published results for both. GLM-5.1 scores higher in 7 categories and Qwen-14B in 0 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in writing & preference, where GLM-5.1 leads 67.2 to 27.8.
Side by side
| GLM-5.1 | Qwen-14B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Z.ai (Zhipu) | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 47.6 | 30.8 |
| Released | 2026-04-07 | 2023-09-24 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | 200K | — |
| Max output | 131K | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | $1.40 | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | $4.40 | — |
| Results tracked | 41 | 18 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding GLM-5.1 leads
GLM-5.1: 48.5 (#52), Qwen-14B: 30.6 (#283)
| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | Qwen-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1486 | 1072 |
| SWE-bench Verified | 74.2% | — |
| LMArena WebDev | 1509 | — |
| SciCode | 43.8% | — |
| WeirdML | 57.1% | — |
| ALE-Bench | 887.1 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
GLM-5.1: 24.8 (#106), Qwen-14B: —
| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | Qwen-14B |
|---|---|---|
| APEX-Agents | 40.9% | — |
| ExploitBench | 18.1% | — |
| GBAEval | 0% | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | 5,634 | — |
Reasoning GLM-5.1 leads
GLM-5.1: 38.2 (#57), Qwen-14B: 18.7 (#255)
| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | Qwen-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1472 | 1027 |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 149.86 | 112.8 |
| SimpleBench | 55.1% | — |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 77.7% | — |
| CritPt | 4.6% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | 19% | — |
| Thematic Generalization | 69.8% | — |
| BIG-Bench Hard | — | 55% |
| LAMBADA | — | 71.1% |
| PIQA | — | 79.9% |
Math GLM-5.1 leads
GLM-5.1: 49.0 (#48), Qwen-14B: 28.7 (#224)
| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | Qwen-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1472 | 1068 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 36.8% | — |
| MathArena Final-Answer Competitions | 67.1% | — |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 93.3% | — |
| ProofBench | 22.2% | — |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 33.4% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | 12.5% | — |
| GSM8K | — | 61.3% |
Knowledge Not comparable
GLM-5.1: 55.0 (#45), Qwen-14B: —
| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | Qwen-14B |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 89.9% | — |
| SimpleQA Verified | 34% | — |
| LMArena Expert | 1477 | — |
| ARC (AI2) Challenge | — | 84.4% |
| BoolQ | — | 86.2% |
| MMLU | — | 66.3% |
Multilingual GLM-5.1 leads
GLM-5.1: 55.2 (#34), Qwen-14B: 27.7 (#270)
| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | Qwen-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1448 | 1042 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1516 | 1077 |
| LMArena French | 1478 | — |
| LMArena German | 1466 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1436 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1423 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1453 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1467 | — |
Instruction Following GLM-5.1 leads
GLM-5.1: 76.5 (#41), Qwen-14B: 52.6 (#284)
| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | Qwen-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1451 | 1031 |
Long Context GLM-5.1 leads
GLM-5.1: 44.9 (#51), Qwen-14B: 31.3 (#276)
| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | Qwen-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1467 | 1029 |
Writing & Preference GLM-5.1 leads
GLM-5.1: 67.2 (#29), Qwen-14B: 27.8 (#294)
| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | Qwen-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1462 | 1051 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1454 | 1028 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1473 | 1022 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1592 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is GLM-5.1 better than Qwen-14B?
GLM-5.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 47.6 to 30.8 on the Noometry Index.
Is GLM-5.1 or Qwen-14B better for coding?
GLM-5.1 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 48.5 versus 30.6 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do GLM-5.1 and Qwen-14B share?
11 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-5.1 has 41 scored results on Noometry and Qwen-14B has 18.