Model comparison
GLM-5.1 vs Qwen3.5 27B
GLM-5.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 47.6 to 41.4 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3.5 27B costs 2.6× less per token, which makes it the better buy when GLM-5.1's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 24 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 24 benchmarks with published results for both. GLM-5.1 scores higher in 8 categories and Qwen3.5 27B in 0 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in knowledge, where GLM-5.1 leads 55.0 to 37.4.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is NYT Connections (extended): 77.7% for GLM-5.1 and 47.9% for Qwen3.5 27B.
- Qwen3.5 27B is cheaper at $0.30 / $2.40 per million input/output tokens, against $1.40 / $4.40 for GLM-5.1.
- Qwen3.5 27B accepts more context: 262K tokens versus 200K.
Side by side
| GLM-5.1 | Qwen3.5 27B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Z.ai (Zhipu) | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 47.6 | 41.4 |
| Released | 2026-04-07 | 2026-02-23 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | 200K | 262K |
| Max output | 131K | 66K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $1.40 | $0.30 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $4.40 | $2.40 |
| Results tracked | 41 | 28 |
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), Qwen3.5 27B: 38.6 (#159)
| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | Qwen3.5 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena WebDev | 1509 | 1357 |
| WeirdML | 57.1% | 39.5% |
| LMArena Coding | 1486 | 1427 |
| ALE-Bench | 887.1 | 349.45 |
| SWE-bench Verified | 74.2% | — |
| SciCode | 43.8% | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
GLM-5.1: 24.8 (#106), Qwen3.5 27B: —
| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | Qwen3.5 27B |
|---|---|---|
| Vending-Bench 2 | 5,634 | 201.98 |
| APEX-Agents | 40.9% | — |
| ExploitBench | 18.1% | — |
| GBAEval | 0% | — |
Reasoning GLM-5.1 leads
GLM-5.1: 38.2 (#57), Qwen3.5 27B: 26.6 (#116)
| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | Qwen3.5 27B |
|---|---|---|
| NYT Connections (extended) | 77.7% | 47.9% |
| Thematic Generalization | 69.8% | 45.5% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1472 | 1414 |
| SimpleBench | 55.1% | — |
| CritPt | 4.6% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | 19% | — |
| DTBench | — | 82.4% |
| LMCA | — | 34% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 149.86 | — |
Math GLM-5.1 leads
GLM-5.1: 49.0 (#48), Qwen3.5 27B: 36.8 (#103)
| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | Qwen3.5 27B |
|---|---|---|
| MathArena Final-Answer Competitions | 67.1% | 56.7% |
| LMArena Math | 1472 | 1428 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 36.8% | — |
| 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: 55.0 (#45), Qwen3.5 27B: 37.4 (#149)
| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | Qwen3.5 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1477 | 1428 |
| GPQA Diamond | 89.9% | — |
| SimpleQA Verified | 34% | — |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | — | 12.1% |
Multimodal Not comparable
GLM-5.1: —, Qwen3.5 27B: 38.7 (#56)
| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | Qwen3.5 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | — | 1240 |
Multilingual GLM-5.1 leads
GLM-5.1: 55.2 (#34), Qwen3.5 27B: 51.0 (#112)
| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | Qwen3.5 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1448 | 1390 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1516 | 1478 |
| LMArena French | 1478 | 1409 |
| LMArena German | 1466 | 1393 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1436 | 1345 |
| LMArena Korean | 1423 | 1359 |
| LMArena Russian | 1453 | 1389 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1467 | 1408 |
Instruction Following GLM-5.1 leads
GLM-5.1: 76.5 (#41), Qwen3.5 27B: 73.7 (#114)
| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | Qwen3.5 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1451 | 1393 |
Long Context GLM-5.1 leads
GLM-5.1: 44.9 (#51), Qwen3.5 27B: 43.1 (#103)
| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | Qwen3.5 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1467 | 1413 |
Writing & Preference GLM-5.1 leads
GLM-5.1: 67.2 (#29), Qwen3.5 27B: 59.5 (#106)
| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | Qwen3.5 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1462 | 1409 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1454 | 1362 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1473 | 1410 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1592 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is GLM-5.1 better than Qwen3.5 27B?
GLM-5.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 47.6 to 41.4 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3.5 27B costs 2.6× less per token, which makes it the better buy when GLM-5.1's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, GLM-5.1 or Qwen3.5 27B?
Qwen3.5 27B is cheaper. It lists at $0.30 per million input tokens and $2.40 per million output tokens; GLM-5.1 lists at $1.40 and $4.40.
Is GLM-5.1 or Qwen3.5 27B better for coding?
GLM-5.1 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 48.5 versus 38.6 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Qwen3.5 27B does, with 262K tokens against 200K.
How many benchmarks do GLM-5.1 and Qwen3.5 27B share?
24 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-5.1 has 41 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.5 27B has 28.