Noometry

Model comparison

GLM-5.1 vs Qwen Max

GLM-5.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 47.8 to 34.7 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 20 shared benchmarks.

GLM-5.1 Z.ai (Zhipu)

47.8

Rank #59 Confirmed

Qwen Max Alibaba (Qwen)

34.7

Rank #230 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 20 benchmarks with published results for both. GLM-5.1 scores higher in 8 categories and Qwen Max in 0 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in math, where GLM-5.1 leads 49.7 to 22.3.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 93.3% for GLM-5.1 and 16.1% for Qwen Max.
  • GLM-5.1 is cheaper at $1.40 / $4.40 per million input/output tokens, against $1.60 / $6.40 for Qwen Max.
  • GLM-5.1 accepts more context: 200K tokens versus 33K.
  • GLM-5.1 has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

GLM-5.1Qwen Max
ProviderZ.ai (Zhipu)Alibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index47.834.7
Released2026-04-072024-04-03
WeightsOpenProprietary
Context window200K33K
Max output131K8K
Input $ / M tokens$1.40$1.60
Output $ / M tokens$4.40$6.40
Results tracked4123

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

Category by category

Coding GLM-5.1 leads

GLM-5.1: 48.7 (#55), Qwen Max: 30.7 (#292)

BenchmarkGLM-5.1Qwen Max
LMArena Coding14851288
SWE-bench Verified74.2%—
Aider Polyglot—21.8%
LMArena WebDev1508—
SciCode43.8%—
WeirdML57.1%—
ALE-Bench887.1—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

GLM-5.1: 24.9 (#113), Qwen Max: —

BenchmarkGLM-5.1Qwen Max
APEX-Agents40.9%—
ExploitBench18.1%—
GBAEval0%—
Vending-Bench 25,634—

Reasoning GLM-5.1 leads

GLM-5.1: 39.1 (#60), Qwen Max: 25.1 (#151)

BenchmarkGLM-5.1Qwen Max
LMArena Hard Prompts14721269
SimpleBench55.1%—
NYT Connections (extended)77.7%—
CritPt4.6%—
Chess Puzzles19%—
Thematic Generalization69.8%—
Epoch Capabilities Index149.84—

Math GLM-5.1 leads

GLM-5.1: 49.7 (#60), Qwen Max: 22.3 (#276)

BenchmarkGLM-5.1Qwen Max
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202593.3%16.1%
LMArena Math14731275
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)33.4%1%
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)36.8%—
MathArena Final-Answer Competitions67.1%—
ProofBench22.2%—
MATH Level 5—67.2%
FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1)12.5%—

Knowledge GLM-5.1 leads

GLM-5.1: 54.9 (#50), Qwen Max: 30.3 (#228)

BenchmarkGLM-5.1Qwen Max
GPQA Diamond89.9%56.1%
LMArena Expert14761248
SimpleQA Verified34%—

Multilingual GLM-5.1 leads

GLM-5.1: 55.0 (#36), Qwen Max: 41.8 (#202)

BenchmarkGLM-5.1Qwen Max
LMArena Non-English14471263
LMArena Chinese15151254
LMArena French14741330
LMArena German14651254
LMArena Japanese14341205
LMArena Korean14181142
LMArena Russian14541274
LMArena Spanish14691290

Instruction Following GLM-5.1 leads

GLM-5.1: 76.3 (#42), Qwen Max: 66.5 (#208)

BenchmarkGLM-5.1Qwen Max
LMArena Instruction Following14511262

Long Context GLM-5.1 leads

GLM-5.1: 44.9 (#53), Qwen Max: 39.4 (#180)

BenchmarkGLM-5.1Qwen Max
LMArena Longer Query14661288
Fiction.LiveBench—66.7%

Writing & Preference GLM-5.1 leads

GLM-5.1: 66.9 (#31), Qwen Max: 47.8 (#205)

BenchmarkGLM-5.1Qwen Max
LMArena Text14611282
LMArena Creative Writing14531248
LMArena Multi-Turn14721277
EQ-Bench Creative Writing1592—

Frequently asked questions

Is GLM-5.1 better than Qwen Max?

GLM-5.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 47.8 to 34.7 on the Noometry Index.

Which is cheaper, GLM-5.1 or Qwen Max?

GLM-5.1 is cheaper. It lists at $1.40 per million input tokens and $4.40 per million output tokens; Qwen Max lists at $1.60 and $6.40.

Is GLM-5.1 or Qwen Max better for coding?

GLM-5.1 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 48.7 versus 30.7 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

GLM-5.1 does, with 200K tokens against 33K.

How many benchmarks do GLM-5.1 and Qwen Max share?

20 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-5.1 has 41 scored results on Noometry and Qwen Max has 23.

Related comparisons

Go deeper