Model comparison

GLM-5.1 vs Qwen2-72B

GLM-5.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 47.6 to 29.5 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 20 shared benchmarks.

GLM-5.1 Z.ai (Zhipu)

47.6

Rank #51 Confirmed

Qwen2-72B Alibaba (Qwen)

29.5

Rank #294 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 20 benchmarks with published results for both. GLM-5.1 scores higher in 9 categories and Qwen2-72B in 0 categories; 9 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in knowledge, where GLM-5.1 leads 55.0 to 21.2.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is GPQA Diamond: 89.9% for GLM-5.1 and 40.8% for Qwen2-72B.

Side by side

GLM-5.1 and Qwen2-72B specifications
GLM-5.1Qwen2-72B
ProviderZ.ai (Zhipu)Alibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index47.629.5
Released2026-04-072024-06-07
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window200K—
Max output131K—
Input $ / M tokens$1.40—
Output $ / M tokens$4.40—
Results tracked4126

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), Qwen2-72B: 28.7 (#303)

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5.1Qwen2-72B
WeirdML57.1%11.3%
LMArena Coding14861196
SWE-bench Verified74.2%—
LMArena WebDev1509—
SciCode43.8%—
BigCodeBench Instruct—38.5%
BigCodeBench Complete—54%
ALE-Bench887.1—

Agentic & Tool Use GLM-5.1 leads

GLM-5.1: 24.8 (#106), Qwen2-72B: 16.9 (#138)

Agentic & Tool Use benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5.1Qwen2-72B
APEX-Agents40.9%—
TheAgentCompany—1.1%
ExploitBench18.1%—
GBAEval0%—
METR Time Horizons—29.9%
Vending-Bench 25,634—

Reasoning GLM-5.1 leads

GLM-5.1: 38.2 (#57), Qwen2-72B: 22.2 (#184)

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5.1Qwen2-72B
LMArena Hard Prompts14721191
Epoch Capabilities Index149.86125.27
SimpleBench55.1%—
NYT Connections (extended)77.7%—
CritPt4.6%—
Chess Puzzles19%—
Thematic Generalization69.8%—

Math GLM-5.1 leads

GLM-5.1: 49.0 (#48), Qwen2-72B: 27.9 (#232)

Knowledge GLM-5.1 leads

GLM-5.1: 55.0 (#45), Qwen2-72B: 21.2 (#270)

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5.1Qwen2-72B
GPQA Diamond89.9%40.8%
LMArena Expert14771171
SimpleQA Verified34%—
MMLU—82.4%

Multilingual GLM-5.1 leads

GLM-5.1: 55.2 (#34), Qwen2-72B: 36.0 (#239)

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5.1Qwen2-72B
LMArena Non-English14481176
LMArena Chinese15161240
LMArena French14781169
LMArena German14661151
LMArena Japanese14361111
LMArena Korean14231083
LMArena Russian14531169
LMArena Spanish14671168

Instruction Following GLM-5.1 leads

GLM-5.1: 76.5 (#41), Qwen2-72B: 62.0 (#236)

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5.1Qwen2-72B
LMArena Instruction Following14511181

Long Context GLM-5.1 leads

GLM-5.1: 44.9 (#51), Qwen2-72B: 36.1 (#230)

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5.1Qwen2-72B
LMArena Longer Query14671193

Writing & Preference GLM-5.1 leads

GLM-5.1: 67.2 (#29), Qwen2-72B: 41.0 (#236)

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5.1Qwen2-72B
LMArena Text14621203
LMArena Creative Writing14541181
LMArena Multi-Turn14731195
EQ-Bench Creative Writing1592—

Frequently asked questions

Is GLM-5.1 better than Qwen2-72B?

GLM-5.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 47.6 to 29.5 on the Noometry Index.

Is GLM-5.1 or Qwen2-72B better for coding?

GLM-5.1 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 48.5 versus 28.7 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do GLM-5.1 and Qwen2-72B share?

20 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-5.1 has 41 scored results on Noometry and Qwen2-72B has 26.

Related comparisons

Go deeper