Model comparison

GLM-5.1 vs Qwen3.5 122B-A10B

GLM-5.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 47.8 to 42.1 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3.5 122B-A10B costs 2.0× 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. 22 shared benchmarks.

GLM-5.1 Z.ai (Zhipu)

47.8

Rank #59 Confirmed

Qwen3.5 122B-A10B

Alibaba (Qwen)

42.1

Rank #119 Confirmed

Summary

They share 22 benchmarks with published results for both. GLM-5.1 scores higher in 8 categories and Qwen3.5 122B-A10B in 0 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
The widest gap is in knowledge, where GLM-5.1 leads 54.9 to 38.8.
The biggest single-benchmark swing is NYT Connections (extended): 77.7% for GLM-5.1 and 51.7% for Qwen3.5 122B-A10B.
Qwen3.5 122B-A10B is cheaper at $0.40 / $3.20 per million input/output tokens, against $1.40 / $4.40 for GLM-5.1.
Qwen3.5 122B-A10B accepts more context: 262K tokens versus 200K.

Side by side

GLM-5.1 and Qwen3.5 122B-A10B specifications
	GLM-5.1	Qwen3.5 122B-A10B
Provider	Z.ai (Zhipu)	Alibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index	47.8	42.1
Released	2026-04-07	2026-02-23
Weights	Open	Open
Context window	200K	262K
Max output	131K	66K
Input $ / M tokens	$1.40	$0.40
Output $ / M tokens	$4.40	$3.20
Results tracked	41	27

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), Qwen3.5 122B-A10B: 39.1 (#162)

Coding benchmarks
Benchmark	GLM-5.1	Qwen3.5 122B-A10B
LMArena WebDev	1508	1360
SciCode	43.8%	35.6%
LMArena Coding	1485	1436
SWE-bench Verified	74.2%	—
WeirdML	57.1%	—
ALE-Bench	887.1	—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

GLM-5.1: 24.9 (#113), Qwen3.5 122B-A10B: —

Agentic & Tool Use benchmarks
Benchmark	GLM-5.1	Qwen3.5 122B-A10B
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), Qwen3.5 122B-A10B: 27.2 (#123)

Reasoning benchmarks
Benchmark	GLM-5.1	Qwen3.5 122B-A10B
NYT Connections (extended)	77.7%	51.7%
CritPt	4.6%	0.9%
Thematic Generalization	69.8%	51.2%
LMArena Hard Prompts	1472	1421
SimpleBench	55.1%	—
Chess Puzzles	19%	—
Mystery Game Puzzles	—	17%
DTBench	—	84.3%
LMCA	—	32.2%
Epoch Capabilities Index	149.84	—

Math GLM-5.1 leads

GLM-5.1: 49.7 (#60), Qwen3.5 122B-A10B: 39.1 (#112)

Math benchmarks
Benchmark	GLM-5.1	Qwen3.5 122B-A10B
LMArena Math	1473	1432
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), Qwen3.5 122B-A10B: 38.8 (#142)

Knowledge benchmarks
Benchmark	GLM-5.1	Qwen3.5 122B-A10B
LMArena Expert	1476	1432
GPQA Diamond	89.9%	—
SimpleQA Verified	34%	—
Vectara Hallucination Rate	—	11.2%

Multimodal Not comparable

GLM-5.1: —, Qwen3.5 122B-A10B: 39.6 (#57)

Multimodal benchmarks
Benchmark	GLM-5.1	Qwen3.5 122B-A10B
LMArena Vision	—	1245

Multilingual GLM-5.1 leads

GLM-5.1: 55.0 (#36), Qwen3.5 122B-A10B: 51.6 (#107)

Multilingual benchmarks
Benchmark	GLM-5.1	Qwen3.5 122B-A10B
LMArena Non-English	1447	1400
LMArena Chinese	1515	1462
LMArena French	1474	1442
LMArena German	1465	1426
LMArena Japanese	1434	1367
LMArena Korean	1418	1352
LMArena Russian	1454	1400
LMArena Spanish	1469	1424

Instruction Following GLM-5.1 leads

GLM-5.1: 76.3 (#42), Qwen3.5 122B-A10B: 73.8 (#115)

Instruction Following benchmarks
Benchmark	GLM-5.1	Qwen3.5 122B-A10B
LMArena Instruction Following	1451	1399

Long Context GLM-5.1 leads

GLM-5.1: 44.9 (#53), Qwen3.5 122B-A10B: 43.0 (#109)

Long Context benchmarks
Benchmark	GLM-5.1	Qwen3.5 122B-A10B
LMArena Longer Query	1466	1410

Writing & Preference GLM-5.1 leads

GLM-5.1: 66.9 (#31), Qwen3.5 122B-A10B: 60.0 (#105)

Writing & Preference benchmarks
Benchmark	GLM-5.1	Qwen3.5 122B-A10B
LMArena Text	1461	1417
LMArena Creative Writing	1453	1368
LMArena Multi-Turn	1472	1416
EQ-Bench Creative Writing	1592	—

Frequently asked questions

Is GLM-5.1 better than Qwen3.5 122B-A10B?

Which is cheaper, GLM-5.1 or Qwen3.5 122B-A10B?

Qwen3.5 122B-A10B is cheaper. It lists at $0.40 per million input tokens and $3.20 per million output tokens; GLM-5.1 lists at $1.40 and $4.40.

Is GLM-5.1 or Qwen3.5 122B-A10B better for coding?

GLM-5.1 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 48.7 versus 39.1 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Qwen3.5 122B-A10B does, with 262K tokens against 200K.

How many benchmarks do GLM-5.1 and Qwen3.5 122B-A10B share?

22 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-5.1 has 41 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.5 122B-A10B has 27.