Model comparison
GLM-5.1 vs Qwen1.5-14B
GLM-5.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 47.8 to 32.7 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 16 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 16 benchmarks with published results for both. GLM-5.1 scores higher in 8 categories and Qwen1.5-14B in 0 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in writing & preference, where GLM-5.1 leads 66.9 to 33.6.
Side by side
| GLM-5.1 | Qwen1.5-14B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Z.ai (Zhipu) | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 47.8 | 32.7 |
| Released | 2026-04-07 | 2024-02-04 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | 200K | — |
| Max output | 131K | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | $1.40 | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | $4.40 | — |
| Results tracked | 41 | 17 |
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), Qwen1.5-14B: 33.1 (#263)
| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | Qwen1.5-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1485 | 1138 |
| SWE-bench Verified | 74.2% | — |
| LMArena WebDev | 1508 | — |
| SciCode | 43.8% | — |
| WeirdML | 57.1% | — |
| ALE-Bench | 887.1 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
GLM-5.1: 24.9 (#113), Qwen1.5-14B: —
| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | Qwen1.5-14B |
|---|---|---|
| APEX-Agents | 40.9% | — |
| ExploitBench | 18.1% | — |
| GBAEval | 0% | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | 5,634 | — |
Reasoning GLM-5.1 leads
GLM-5.1: 39.1 (#60), Qwen1.5-14B: 21.4 (#223)
| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | Qwen1.5-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1472 | 1113 |
| SimpleBench | 55.1% | — |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 77.7% | — |
| CritPt | 4.6% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | 19% | — |
| Thematic Generalization | 69.8% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 149.84 | — |
Math GLM-5.1 leads
GLM-5.1: 49.7 (#60), Qwen1.5-14B: 32.4 (#215)
| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | Qwen1.5-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1473 | 1125 |
| 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% | — |
Knowledge GLM-5.1 leads
GLM-5.1: 54.9 (#50), Qwen1.5-14B: 29.8 (#232)
| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | Qwen1.5-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1476 | 1094 |
| GPQA Diamond | 89.9% | — |
| SimpleQA Verified | 34% | — |
| MMLU | — | 68.6% |
Multilingual GLM-5.1 leads
GLM-5.1: 55.0 (#36), Qwen1.5-14B: 30.7 (#262)
| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | Qwen1.5-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1447 | 1095 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1515 | 1147 |
| LMArena French | 1474 | 1116 |
| LMArena German | 1465 | 1043 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1434 | 1019 |
| LMArena Russian | 1454 | 1046 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1469 | 1085 |
| LMArena Korean | 1418 | — |
Instruction Following GLM-5.1 leads
GLM-5.1: 76.3 (#42), Qwen1.5-14B: 56.8 (#271)
| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | Qwen1.5-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1451 | 1102 |
Long Context GLM-5.1 leads
GLM-5.1: 44.9 (#53), Qwen1.5-14B: 33.7 (#257)
| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | Qwen1.5-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1466 | 1113 |
Writing & Preference GLM-5.1 leads
GLM-5.1: 66.9 (#31), Qwen1.5-14B: 33.6 (#276)
| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | Qwen1.5-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1461 | 1128 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1453 | 1091 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1472 | 1110 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1592 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is GLM-5.1 better than Qwen1.5-14B?
GLM-5.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 47.8 to 32.7 on the Noometry Index.
Is GLM-5.1 or Qwen1.5-14B better for coding?
GLM-5.1 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 48.7 versus 33.1 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do GLM-5.1 and Qwen1.5-14B share?
16 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-5.1 has 41 scored results on Noometry and Qwen1.5-14B has 17.