Model comparison
GLM-5.1 vs Qwen3.6 Max Preview
Qwen3.6 Max Preview is the stronger model overall, scoring 51.1 to 47.6 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 26 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 26 benchmarks with published results for both. GLM-5.1 scores higher in 4 categories and Qwen3.6 Max Preview in 4 categories; 4 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where Qwen3.6 Max Preview leads 52.2 to 49.0.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is SimpleQA Verified: 34% for GLM-5.1 and 52% for Qwen3.6 Max Preview.
- GLM-5.1 is cheaper at $1.40 / $4.40 per million input/output tokens, against $1.30 / $7.80 for Qwen3.6 Max Preview.
- Qwen3.6 Max Preview accepts more context: 262K tokens versus 200K.
- GLM-5.1 has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| GLM-5.1 | Qwen3.6 Max Preview | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Z.ai (Zhipu) | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 47.6 | 51.1 |
| Released | 2026-04-07 | 2026-04-20 |
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |
| Context window | 200K | 262K |
| Max output | 131K | 66K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $1.40 | $1.30 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $4.40 | $7.80 |
| Results tracked | 41 | 29 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Too close to call
GLM-5.1: 48.5 (#52), Qwen3.6 Max Preview: 48.6 (#50)
| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | Qwen3.6 Max Preview |
|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench Verified | 74.2% | 76.7% |
| LMArena WebDev | 1509 | 1482 |
| LMArena Coding | 1486 | 1472 |
| SciCode | 43.8% | — |
| WeirdML | 57.1% | — |
| ALE-Bench | 887.1 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
GLM-5.1: 24.8 (#106), Qwen3.6 Max Preview: —
| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | Qwen3.6 Max Preview |
|---|---|---|
| Vending-Bench 2 | 5,634 | 4,254 |
| APEX-Agents | 40.9% | — |
| ExploitBench | 18.1% | — |
| GBAEval | 0% | — |
Reasoning Qwen3.6 Max Preview leads
GLM-5.1: 38.2 (#57), Qwen3.6 Max Preview: 40.8 (#47)
| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | Qwen3.6 Max Preview |
|---|---|---|
| SimpleBench | 55.1% | 63% |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 77.7% | 74.1% |
| Chess Puzzles | 19% | 20% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1472 | 1457 |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 149.86 | 149.27 |
| CritPt | 4.6% | — |
| Thematic Generalization | 69.8% | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | — | 19% |
| DTBench | — | 87.2% |
| LMCA | — | 42.5% |
Math Qwen3.6 Max Preview leads
GLM-5.1: 49.0 (#48), Qwen3.6 Max Preview: 52.2 (#40)
| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | Qwen3.6 Max Preview |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 93.3% | 91.1% |
| LMArena Math | 1472 | 1465 |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 33.4% | 23.1% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | 12.5% | 4.2% |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 36.8% | — |
| MathArena Final-Answer Competitions | 67.1% | — |
| ProofBench | 22.2% | — |
Knowledge Qwen3.6 Max Preview leads
GLM-5.1: 55.0 (#45), Qwen3.6 Max Preview: 57.6 (#35)
| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | Qwen3.6 Max Preview |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 89.9% | 87.4% |
| SimpleQA Verified | 34% | 52% |
| LMArena Expert | 1477 | 1476 |
Multilingual Too close to call
GLM-5.1: 55.2 (#34), Qwen3.6 Max Preview: 54.3 (#46)
| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | Qwen3.6 Max Preview |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1448 | 1436 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1516 | 1487 |
| LMArena French | 1478 | 1449 |
| LMArena Russian | 1453 | 1444 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1467 | 1452 |
| LMArena German | 1466 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1436 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1423 | — |
Instruction Following Too close to call
GLM-5.1: 76.5 (#41), Qwen3.6 Max Preview: 75.8 (#51)
| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | Qwen3.6 Max Preview |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1451 | 1437 |
Long Context Too close to call
GLM-5.1: 44.9 (#51), Qwen3.6 Max Preview: 44.6 (#59)
| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | Qwen3.6 Max Preview |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1467 | 1457 |
Writing & Preference GLM-5.1 leads
GLM-5.1: 67.2 (#29), Qwen3.6 Max Preview: 64.0 (#58)
| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | Qwen3.6 Max Preview |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1462 | 1447 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1454 | 1435 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1473 | 1456 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1592 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is GLM-5.1 better than Qwen3.6 Max Preview?
Qwen3.6 Max Preview is the stronger model overall, scoring 51.1 to 47.6 on the Noometry Index.
Which is cheaper, GLM-5.1 or Qwen3.6 Max Preview?
GLM-5.1 is cheaper. It lists at $1.40 per million input tokens and $4.40 per million output tokens; Qwen3.6 Max Preview lists at $1.30 and $7.80.
Is GLM-5.1 or Qwen3.6 Max Preview better for coding?
They score almost the same on coding (48.5 vs 48.6); test both on your own repository before choosing.
Which has the bigger context window?
Qwen3.6 Max Preview does, with 262K tokens against 200K.
How many benchmarks do GLM-5.1 and Qwen3.6 Max Preview share?
26 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-5.1 has 41 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.6 Max Preview has 29.