Model comparison
GLM-5.1 vs Qwen3.5-Flash
GLM-5.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 47.8 to 42.5 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3.5-Flash costs 12× less per token, which makes it the better buy when GLM-5.1's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 28 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 28 benchmarks with published results for both. GLM-5.1 scores higher in 8 categories and Qwen3.5-Flash in 0 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in coding, where GLM-5.1 leads 48.7 to 34.2.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3): 36.8% for GLM-5.1 and 18.2% for Qwen3.5-Flash.
- Qwen3.5-Flash is cheaper at $0.10 / $0.40 per million input/output tokens, against $1.40 / $4.40 for GLM-5.1.
- Qwen3.5-Flash accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 200K.
- GLM-5.1 has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| GLM-5.1 | Qwen3.5-Flash | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Z.ai (Zhipu) | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 47.8 | 42.5 |
| Released | 2026-04-07 | 2026-02-23 |
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |
| Context window | 200K | 1M |
| Max output | 131K | 66K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $1.40 | $0.10 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $4.40 | $0.40 |
| Results tracked | 41 | 32 |
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-Flash: 34.2 (#242)
| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena WebDev | 1508 | 1244 |
| LMArena Coding | 1485 | 1412 |
| ALE-Bench | 887.1 | 221.8 |
| SWE-bench Verified | 74.2% | — |
| SciCode | 43.8% | — |
| WeirdML | 57.1% | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
GLM-5.1: 24.9 (#113), Qwen3.5-Flash: —
| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Vending-Bench 2 | 5,634 | 462.69 |
| APEX-Agents | 40.9% | — |
| ExploitBench | 18.1% | — |
| GBAEval | 0% | — |
Reasoning GLM-5.1 leads
GLM-5.1: 39.1 (#60), Qwen3.5-Flash: 33.7 (#72)
| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Chess Puzzles | 19% | 21% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1472 | 1403 |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 149.84 | 143.98 |
| SimpleBench | 55.1% | — |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 77.7% | — |
| CritPt | 4.6% | — |
| Thematic Generalization | 69.8% | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | — | 20% |
| DTBench | — | 82.9% |
| LMCA | — | 29.1% |
Math GLM-5.1 leads
GLM-5.1: 49.7 (#60), Qwen3.5-Flash: 37.4 (#158)
| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 36.8% | 18.2% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 93.3% | 84.4% |
| LMArena Math | 1473 | 1407 |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 33.4% | 6.2% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | 12.5% | 0% |
| MathArena Final-Answer Competitions | 67.1% | — |
| ProofBench | 22.2% | — |
Knowledge GLM-5.1 leads
GLM-5.1: 54.9 (#50), Qwen3.5-Flash: 43.2 (#93)
| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 89.9% | 82.3% |
| SimpleQA Verified | 34% | 20.3% |
| LMArena Expert | 1476 | 1407 |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | — | 10.5% |
Multilingual GLM-5.1 leads
GLM-5.1: 55.0 (#36), Qwen3.5-Flash: 50.5 (#121)
| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1447 | 1385 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1515 | 1446 |
| LMArena French | 1474 | 1412 |
| LMArena German | 1465 | 1390 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1434 | 1368 |
| LMArena Korean | 1418 | 1344 |
| LMArena Russian | 1454 | 1379 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1469 | 1400 |
Instruction Following GLM-5.1 leads
GLM-5.1: 76.3 (#42), Qwen3.5-Flash: 72.6 (#139)
| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1451 | 1374 |
Long Context GLM-5.1 leads
GLM-5.1: 44.9 (#53), Qwen3.5-Flash: 42.4 (#124)
| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1466 | 1392 |
Writing & Preference GLM-5.1 leads
GLM-5.1: 66.9 (#31), Qwen3.5-Flash: 57.9 (#122)
| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1461 | 1397 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1453 | 1343 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1472 | 1393 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1592 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is GLM-5.1 better than Qwen3.5-Flash?
GLM-5.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 47.8 to 42.5 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3.5-Flash costs 12× 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-Flash?
Qwen3.5-Flash is cheaper. It lists at $0.10 per million input tokens and $0.40 per million output tokens; GLM-5.1 lists at $1.40 and $4.40.
Is GLM-5.1 or Qwen3.5-Flash better for coding?
GLM-5.1 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 48.7 versus 34.2 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Qwen3.5-Flash does, with 1M tokens against 200K.
How many benchmarks do GLM-5.1 and Qwen3.5-Flash share?
28 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-5.1 has 41 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.5-Flash has 32.