Noometry

Model comparison

GLM-5.1 vs Qwen3.7 Flash

GLM-5.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 47.8 to 39.9 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3.7 Flash costs 39× less per token, which makes it the better buy when GLM-5.1's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Last verified . 6 shared benchmarks.

GLM-5.1 Z.ai (Zhipu)

47.8

Rank #59 Confirmed

Qwen3.7 Flash Alibaba (Qwen)

39.9

Rank #156 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 6 benchmarks with published results for both. GLM-5.1 scores higher in 3 categories and Qwen3.7 Flash in 0 categories; 3 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in math, where GLM-5.1 leads 49.7 to 38.3.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is NYT Connections (extended): 77.7% for GLM-5.1 and 43.8% for Qwen3.7 Flash.
  • Qwen3.7 Flash is cheaper at $0.03 / $0.13 per million input/output tokens, against $1.40 / $4.40 for GLM-5.1.
  • Qwen3.7 Flash accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 200K.
  • GLM-5.1 has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

GLM-5.1Qwen3.7 Flash
ProviderZ.ai (Zhipu)Alibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index47.839.9
Released2026-04-072026-07-15
WeightsOpenProprietary
Context window200K1M
Max output131K131K
Input $ / M tokens$1.40$0.03
Output $ / M tokens$4.40$0.13
Results tracked417

Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry

Category by category

Coding Not comparable

GLM-5.1: 48.7 (#55), Qwen3.7 Flash: —

BenchmarkGLM-5.1Qwen3.7 Flash
SWE-bench Verified74.2%—
LMArena WebDev1508—
SciCode43.8%—
WeirdML57.1%—
LMArena Coding1485—
ALE-Bench887.1—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

GLM-5.1: 24.9 (#113), Qwen3.7 Flash: —

BenchmarkGLM-5.1Qwen3.7 Flash
APEX-Agents40.9%—
ExploitBench18.1%—
GBAEval0%—
Vending-Bench 25,634—

Reasoning GLM-5.1 leads

GLM-5.1: 39.1 (#60), Qwen3.7 Flash: 28.2 (#108)

BenchmarkGLM-5.1Qwen3.7 Flash
NYT Connections (extended)77.7%43.8%
Chess Puzzles19%23%
Epoch Capabilities Index149.84144.64
SimpleBench55.1%—
CritPt4.6%—
Thematic Generalization69.8%—
LMArena Hard Prompts1472—
Mystery Game Puzzles—15%

Math GLM-5.1 leads

GLM-5.1: 49.7 (#60), Qwen3.7 Flash: 38.3 (#140)

BenchmarkGLM-5.1Qwen3.7 Flash
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)36.8%19.3%
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202593.3%86.7%
MathArena Final-Answer Competitions67.1%—
ProofBench22.2%—
LMArena Math1473—
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)33.4%—
FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1)12.5%—

Knowledge GLM-5.1 leads

GLM-5.1: 54.9 (#50), Qwen3.7 Flash: 48.9 (#75)

BenchmarkGLM-5.1Qwen3.7 Flash
GPQA Diamond89.9%82.3%
SimpleQA Verified34%—
LMArena Expert1476—

Multilingual Not comparable

GLM-5.1: 55.0 (#36), Qwen3.7 Flash: —

BenchmarkGLM-5.1Qwen3.7 Flash
LMArena Non-English1447—
LMArena Chinese1515—
LMArena French1474—
LMArena German1465—
LMArena Japanese1434—
LMArena Korean1418—
LMArena Russian1454—
LMArena Spanish1469—

Instruction Following Not comparable

GLM-5.1: 76.3 (#42), Qwen3.7 Flash: —

BenchmarkGLM-5.1Qwen3.7 Flash
LMArena Instruction Following1451—

Long Context Not comparable

GLM-5.1: 44.9 (#53), Qwen3.7 Flash: —

BenchmarkGLM-5.1Qwen3.7 Flash
LMArena Longer Query1466—

Writing & Preference Not comparable

GLM-5.1: 66.9 (#31), Qwen3.7 Flash: —

BenchmarkGLM-5.1Qwen3.7 Flash
LMArena Text1461—
LMArena Creative Writing1453—
EQ-Bench Creative Writing1592—
LMArena Multi-Turn1472—

Frequently asked questions

Is GLM-5.1 better than Qwen3.7 Flash?

GLM-5.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 47.8 to 39.9 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3.7 Flash costs 39× 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 Qwen3.7 Flash?

Qwen3.7 Flash is cheaper. It lists at $0.03 per million input tokens and $0.13 per million output tokens; GLM-5.1 lists at $1.40 and $4.40.

Which has the bigger context window?

Qwen3.7 Flash does, with 1M tokens against 200K.

How many benchmarks do GLM-5.1 and Qwen3.7 Flash share?

6 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-5.1 has 41 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.7 Flash has 7.

Related comparisons

Go deeper