Model comparison

GLM-5.1 vs Qwen2.5-Max

GLM-5.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 47.8 to 40.7 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 18 shared benchmarks.

GLM-5.1 Z.ai (Zhipu)

47.8

Rank #59 Confirmed

Qwen2.5-Max Alibaba (Qwen)

40.7

Rank #146 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 18 benchmarks with published results for both. GLM-5.1 scores higher in 8 categories and Qwen2.5-Max in 0 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in knowledge, where GLM-5.1 leads 54.9 to 35.3.
  • GLM-5.1 has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

GLM-5.1 and Qwen2.5-Max specifications
GLM-5.1Qwen2.5-Max
ProviderZ.ai (Zhipu)Alibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index47.840.7
Released2026-04-072025-01-25
WeightsOpenProprietary
Context window200K—
Max output131K—
Input $ / M tokens$1.40—
Output $ / M tokens$4.40—
Results tracked4127

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-Max: 41.8 (#117)

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5.1Qwen2.5-Max
LMArena Coding14851359
SWE-bench Verified74.2%—
LMArena WebDev1508—
SciCode43.8%—
WeirdML57.1%—
LiveBench Coding—64.4%
ALE-Bench887.1—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

GLM-5.1: 24.9 (#113), Qwen2.5-Max: —

Agentic & Tool Use benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5.1Qwen2.5-Max
APEX-Agents40.9%—
ExploitBench18.1%—
GBAEval0%—
Vending-Bench 25,634—

Reasoning GLM-5.1 leads

GLM-5.1: 39.1 (#60), Qwen2.5-Max: 25.6 (#147)

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5.1Qwen2.5-Max
LMArena Hard Prompts14721360
Epoch Capabilities Index149.84132.53
SimpleBench55.1%—
NYT Connections (extended)77.7%—
CritPt4.6%—
Chess Puzzles19%—
Thematic Generalization69.8%—
LiveBench Reasoning—51.4%
LiveBench Data Analysis—67.9%
LiveBench—62.3%

Math GLM-5.1 leads

GLM-5.1: 49.7 (#60), Qwen2.5-Max: 36.9 (#162)

Knowledge GLM-5.1 leads

GLM-5.1: 54.9 (#50), Qwen2.5-Max: 35.3 (#186)

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5.1Qwen2.5-Max
LMArena Expert14761337
GPQA Diamond89.9%—
SimpleQA Verified34%—
Confabulations—21.8%

Multilingual GLM-5.1 leads

GLM-5.1: 55.0 (#36), Qwen2.5-Max: 48.1 (#146)

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5.1Qwen2.5-Max
LMArena Non-English14471352
LMArena Chinese15151382
LMArena French14741396
LMArena German14651350
LMArena Japanese14341300
LMArena Korean14181304
LMArena Russian14541353
LMArena Spanish14691377

Instruction Following GLM-5.1 leads

GLM-5.1: 76.3 (#42), Qwen2.5-Max: 71.3 (#152)

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5.1Qwen2.5-Max
LMArena Instruction Following14511335
LiveBench Instruction Following—75.3%

Long Context GLM-5.1 leads

GLM-5.1: 44.9 (#53), Qwen2.5-Max: 41.4 (#142)

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5.1Qwen2.5-Max
LMArena Longer Query14661358

Writing & Preference GLM-5.1 leads

GLM-5.1: 66.9 (#31), Qwen2.5-Max: 55.4 (#146)

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5.1Qwen2.5-Max
LMArena Text14611367
LMArena Creative Writing14531339
LMArena Multi-Turn14721364
Short-Story Creative Writing—72.9%
EQ-Bench Creative Writing1592—
LiveBench Language—56.3%

Frequently asked questions

Is GLM-5.1 better than Qwen2.5-Max?

GLM-5.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 47.8 to 40.7 on the Noometry Index.

Is GLM-5.1 or Qwen2.5-Max better for coding?

GLM-5.1 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 48.7 versus 41.8 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do GLM-5.1 and Qwen2.5-Max share?

18 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-5.1 has 41 scored results on Noometry and Qwen2.5-Max has 27.

Related comparisons

Go deeper