Noometry

Model comparison

GLM-5.1 vs Qwen3.5-9B

GLM-5.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 47.6 to 33.3 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3.5-9B costs 19× less per token, which makes it the better buy when GLM-5.1's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Last verified . 7 shared benchmarks.

GLM-5.1 Z.ai (Zhipu)

47.6

Rank #51 Confirmed

Qwen3.5-9B Alibaba (Qwen)

33.3

Rank #235 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 7 benchmarks with published results for both. GLM-5.1 scores higher in 5 categories and Qwen3.5-9B in 0 categories; 5 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in reasoning, where GLM-5.1 leads 38.2 to 22.5.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 93.3% for GLM-5.1 and 61.7% for Qwen3.5-9B.
  • Qwen3.5-9B is cheaper at $0.10 / $0.15 per million input/output tokens, against $1.40 / $4.40 for GLM-5.1.
  • Qwen3.5-9B accepts more context: 262K tokens versus 200K.

Side by side

GLM-5.1Qwen3.5-9B
ProviderZ.ai (Zhipu)Alibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index47.633.3
Released2026-04-072026-02-23
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window200K262K
Max output131K66K
Input $ / M tokens$1.40$0.10
Output $ / M tokens$4.40$0.15
Results tracked4110

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), Qwen3.5-9B: 35.3 (#213)

BenchmarkGLM-5.1Qwen3.5-9B
SciCode43.8%27.5%
SWE-bench Verified74.2%—
LMArena WebDev1509—
WeirdML57.1%—
LMArena Coding1486—
ALE-Bench887.1—

Agentic & Tool Use GLM-5.1 leads

GLM-5.1: 24.8 (#106), Qwen3.5-9B: 14.4 (#143)

BenchmarkGLM-5.1Qwen3.5-9B
Terminal-Bench—9.2%
APEX-Agents40.9%—
ExploitBench18.1%—
GBAEval0%—
Vending-Bench 25,634—

Reasoning GLM-5.1 leads

GLM-5.1: 38.2 (#57), Qwen3.5-9B: 22.5 (#178)

BenchmarkGLM-5.1Qwen3.5-9B
CritPt4.6%0.3%
Chess Puzzles19%12%
Epoch Capabilities Index149.86139.45
SimpleBench55.1%—
NYT Connections (extended)77.7%—
Thematic Generalization69.8%—
LMArena Hard Prompts1472—
DTBench—71.2%
LMCA—24.5%

Math GLM-5.1 leads

GLM-5.1: 49.0 (#48), Qwen3.5-9B: 33.5 (#174)

BenchmarkGLM-5.1Qwen3.5-9B
MathArena Final-Answer Competitions67.1%48.5%
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202593.3%61.7%
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)36.8%—
ProofBench22.2%—
LMArena Math1472—
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)33.4%—
FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1)12.5%—

Knowledge GLM-5.1 leads

GLM-5.1: 55.0 (#45), Qwen3.5-9B: 46.0 (#77)

BenchmarkGLM-5.1Qwen3.5-9B
GPQA Diamond89.9%79%
SimpleQA Verified34%—
LMArena Expert1477—

Multilingual Not comparable

GLM-5.1: 55.2 (#34), Qwen3.5-9B: —

BenchmarkGLM-5.1Qwen3.5-9B
LMArena Non-English1448—
LMArena Chinese1516—
LMArena French1478—
LMArena German1466—
LMArena Japanese1436—
LMArena Korean1423—
LMArena Russian1453—
LMArena Spanish1467—

Instruction Following Not comparable

GLM-5.1: 76.5 (#41), Qwen3.5-9B: —

BenchmarkGLM-5.1Qwen3.5-9B
LMArena Instruction Following1451—

Long Context Not comparable

GLM-5.1: 44.9 (#51), Qwen3.5-9B: —

BenchmarkGLM-5.1Qwen3.5-9B
LMArena Longer Query1467—

Writing & Preference Not comparable

GLM-5.1: 67.2 (#29), Qwen3.5-9B: —

BenchmarkGLM-5.1Qwen3.5-9B
LMArena Text1462—
LMArena Creative Writing1454—
EQ-Bench Creative Writing1592—
LMArena Multi-Turn1473—

Frequently asked questions

Is GLM-5.1 better than Qwen3.5-9B?

GLM-5.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 47.6 to 33.3 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3.5-9B costs 19× 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 Qwen3.5-9B?

Qwen3.5-9B is cheaper. It lists at $0.10 per million input tokens and $0.15 per million output tokens; GLM-5.1 lists at $1.40 and $4.40.

Is GLM-5.1 or Qwen3.5-9B better for coding?

GLM-5.1 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 48.5 versus 35.3 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Qwen3.5-9B does, with 262K tokens against 200K.

How many benchmarks do GLM-5.1 and Qwen3.5-9B share?

7 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-5.1 has 41 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.5-9B has 10.

Related comparisons

Go deeper