Model comparison

GLM-5.1 vs Qwen2.5-Coder-32B

GLM-5.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 47.8 to 33.4 on the Noometry Index. Qwen2.5-Coder-32B costs 2.9× less per token, which makes it the better buy when GLM-5.1's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Last verified October 10, 2026. 13 shared benchmarks.

GLM-5.1 Z.ai (Zhipu)

47.8

Rank #59 Confirmed

Qwen2.5-Coder-32B

Alibaba (Qwen)

33.4

Rank #245 Confirmed

Summary

They share 13 benchmarks with published results for both. GLM-5.1 scores higher in 8 categories and Qwen2.5-Coder-32B in 0 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
The widest gap is in coding, where GLM-5.1 leads 48.7 to 22.6.
Qwen2.5-Coder-32B is cheaper at $0.66 / $1 per million input/output tokens, against $1.40 / $4.40 for GLM-5.1.
GLM-5.1 accepts more context: 200K tokens versus 33K.

Side by side

GLM-5.1 and Qwen2.5-Coder-32B specifications
	GLM-5.1	Qwen2.5-Coder-32B
Provider	Z.ai (Zhipu)	Alibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index	47.8	33.4
Released	2026-04-07	2024-09-18
Weights	Open	Open
Context window	200K	33K
Max output	131K	29K
Input $ / M tokens	$1.40	$0.66
Output $ / M tokens	$4.40	$1
Results tracked	41	31

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), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 22.6 (#333)

Coding benchmarks
Benchmark	GLM-5.1	Qwen2.5-Coder-32B
LMArena Coding	1485	1276
SWE-bench Verified	74.2%	—
SWE-bench Verified (bash only)	—	9%
Aider Polyglot	—	16.4%
LMArena WebDev	1508	—
SciCode	43.8%	—
WeirdML	57.1%	—
BigCodeBench Instruct	—	49%
LiveBench Coding	—	56.9%
BigCodeBench Complete	—	58%
ALE-Bench	887.1	—
HumanEval+	—	87.2%
MBPP+	—	77%

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

GLM-5.1: 24.9 (#113), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: —

Agentic & Tool Use benchmarks
Benchmark	GLM-5.1	Qwen2.5-Coder-32B
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), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 21.2 (#225)

Reasoning benchmarks
Benchmark	GLM-5.1	Qwen2.5-Coder-32B
LMArena Hard Prompts	1472	1251
Epoch Capabilities Index	149.84	119.49
SimpleBench	55.1%	—
NYT Connections (extended)	77.7%	—
CritPt	4.6%	—
Chess Puzzles	19%	—
Thematic Generalization	69.8%	—
LiveBench Reasoning	—	42.1%
LiveBench Data Analysis	—	49.9%
HellaSwag	—	83%
LiveBench	—	46.2%
WinoGrande	—	80.8%

Math GLM-5.1 leads

GLM-5.1: 49.7 (#60), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 33.3 (#204)

Math benchmarks
Benchmark	GLM-5.1	Qwen2.5-Coder-32B
LMArena Math	1473	1251
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)	36.8%	—
MathArena Final-Answer Competitions	67.1%	—
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025	93.3%	—
ProofBench	22.2%	—
LiveBench Math	—	46.6%
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)	33.4%	—
FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1)	12.5%	—
GSM8K	—	93%

Knowledge GLM-5.1 leads

GLM-5.1: 54.9 (#50), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 33.4 (#203)

Knowledge benchmarks
Benchmark	GLM-5.1	Qwen2.5-Coder-32B
LMArena Expert	1476	1221
GPQA Diamond	89.9%	—
SimpleQA Verified	34%	—
ARC (AI2) Challenge	—	70.5%
MMLU	—	79.1%

Multilingual GLM-5.1 leads

GLM-5.1: 55.0 (#36), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 37.8 (#235)

Multilingual benchmarks
Benchmark	GLM-5.1	Qwen2.5-Coder-32B
LMArena Non-English	1447	1205
LMArena Chinese	1515	1222
LMArena Russian	1454	1228
LMArena French	1474	—
LMArena German	1465	—
LMArena Japanese	1434	—
LMArena Korean	1418	—
LMArena Spanish	1469	—

Instruction Following GLM-5.1 leads

GLM-5.1: 76.3 (#42), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 61.4 (#245)

Instruction Following benchmarks
Benchmark	GLM-5.1	Qwen2.5-Coder-32B
LMArena Instruction Following	1451	1223
LiveBench Instruction Following	—	58.7%

Long Context GLM-5.1 leads

GLM-5.1: 44.9 (#53), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 38.0 (#208)

Long Context benchmarks
Benchmark	GLM-5.1	Qwen2.5-Coder-32B
LMArena Longer Query	1466	1251

Writing & Preference GLM-5.1 leads

GLM-5.1: 66.9 (#31), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 41.6 (#240)

Writing & Preference benchmarks
Benchmark	GLM-5.1	Qwen2.5-Coder-32B
LMArena Text	1461	1230
LMArena Creative Writing	1453	1174
LMArena Multi-Turn	1472	1222
EQ-Bench Creative Writing	1592	—
LiveBench Language	—	23.3%

Frequently asked questions

Is GLM-5.1 better than Qwen2.5-Coder-32B?

Which is cheaper, GLM-5.1 or Qwen2.5-Coder-32B?

Qwen2.5-Coder-32B is cheaper. It lists at $0.66 per million input tokens and $1 per million output tokens; GLM-5.1 lists at $1.40 and $4.40.

Is GLM-5.1 or Qwen2.5-Coder-32B better for coding?

GLM-5.1 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 48.7 versus 22.6 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 Qwen2.5-Coder-32B share?

13 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-5.1 has 41 scored results on Noometry and Qwen2.5-Coder-32B has 31.