Model comparison

GLM-5.1 vs Qwen3.7 Plus

GLM-5.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 47.8 to 45.3 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3.7 Plus costs 3.1× less per token, which makes it the better buy when GLM-5.1's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Last verified October 10, 2026. 25 shared benchmarks.

GLM-5.1 Z.ai (Zhipu)

47.8

Rank #59 Confirmed

Qwen3.7 Plus

Alibaba (Qwen)

45.3

Rank #72 Confirmed

Summary

They share 25 benchmarks with published results for both. GLM-5.1 scores higher in 6 categories and Qwen3.7 Plus in 3 categories; 3 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
The widest gap is in coding, where GLM-5.1 leads 48.7 to 36.6.
The biggest single-benchmark swing is Chess Puzzles: 19% for GLM-5.1 and 24% for Qwen3.7 Plus.
Qwen3.7 Plus is cheaper at $0.40 / $1.60 per million input/output tokens, against $1.40 / $4.40 for GLM-5.1.
Qwen3.7 Plus 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 and Qwen3.7 Plus specifications
	GLM-5.1	Qwen3.7 Plus
Provider	Z.ai (Zhipu)	Alibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index	47.8	45.3
Released	2026-04-07	2026-06-02
Weights	Open	Proprietary
Context window	200K	1M
Max output	131K	131K
Input $ / M tokens	$1.40	$0.40
Output $ / M tokens	$4.40	$1.60
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), Qwen3.7 Plus: 36.6 (#206)

Coding benchmarks
Benchmark	GLM-5.1	Qwen3.7 Plus
SciCode	43.8%	45.5%
LMArena Coding	1485	1473
SWE-bench Verified	74.2%	—
FrontierCode	—	10.2%
LMArena WebDev	1508	—
WeirdML	57.1%	—
ALE-Bench	887.1	—

Agentic & Tool Use GLM-5.1 leads

GLM-5.1: 24.9 (#113), Qwen3.7 Plus: 21.4 (#138)

Agentic & Tool Use benchmarks
Benchmark	GLM-5.1	Qwen3.7 Plus
APEX-Agents	40.9%	—
OSWorld 2.0	—	2.8%
ExploitBench	18.1%	—
GBAEval	0%	—
Vending-Bench 2	5,634	—

Reasoning Too close to call

GLM-5.1: 39.1 (#60), Qwen3.7 Plus: 39.3 (#59)

Reasoning benchmarks
Benchmark	GLM-5.1	Qwen3.7 Plus
NYT Connections (extended)	77.7%	74.8%
CritPt	4.6%	9.1%
Chess Puzzles	19%	24%
LMArena Hard Prompts	1472	1460
Epoch Capabilities Index	149.84	147.37
SimpleBench	55.1%	—
Thematic Generalization	69.8%	—
Mystery Game Puzzles	—	17%
DTBench	—	84%
LMCA	—	37.6%

Math Too close to call

GLM-5.1: 49.7 (#60), Qwen3.7 Plus: 50.5 (#56)

Math benchmarks
Benchmark	GLM-5.1	Qwen3.7 Plus
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)	36.8%	34.4%
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025	93.3%	93.3%
LMArena Math	1473	1466
MathArena Final-Answer Competitions	67.1%	—
ProofBench	22.2%	—
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)	33.4%	—
FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1)	12.5%	—

Knowledge Too close to call

GLM-5.1: 54.9 (#50), Qwen3.7 Plus: 54.9 (#51)

Knowledge benchmarks
Benchmark	GLM-5.1	Qwen3.7 Plus
GPQA Diamond	89.9%	87.9%
LMArena Expert	1476	1467
SimpleQA Verified	34%	—

Multimodal Not comparable

GLM-5.1: —, Qwen3.7 Plus: 41.8 (#33)

Multimodal benchmarks
Benchmark	GLM-5.1	Qwen3.7 Plus
LMArena Vision	—	1279
LMArena Document	—	1444

Multilingual Too close to call

GLM-5.1: 55.0 (#36), Qwen3.7 Plus: 54.8 (#38)

Multilingual benchmarks
Benchmark	GLM-5.1	Qwen3.7 Plus
LMArena Non-English	1447	1445
LMArena Chinese	1515	1510
LMArena French	1474	1473
LMArena German	1465	1471
LMArena Japanese	1434	1413
LMArena Korean	1418	1415
LMArena Russian	1454	1457
LMArena Spanish	1469	1457

Instruction Following Too close to call

GLM-5.1: 76.3 (#42), Qwen3.7 Plus: 75.8 (#52)

Instruction Following benchmarks
Benchmark	GLM-5.1	Qwen3.7 Plus
LMArena Instruction Following	1451	1440

Long Context Too close to call

GLM-5.1: 44.9 (#53), Qwen3.7 Plus: 44.5 (#65)

Long Context benchmarks
Benchmark	GLM-5.1	Qwen3.7 Plus
LMArena Longer Query	1466	1455

Writing & Preference GLM-5.1 leads

GLM-5.1: 66.9 (#31), Qwen3.7 Plus: 64.3 (#56)

Writing & Preference benchmarks
Benchmark	GLM-5.1	Qwen3.7 Plus
LMArena Text	1461	1455
LMArena Creative Writing	1453	1439
LMArena Multi-Turn	1472	1460
EQ-Bench Creative Writing	1592	—

Frequently asked questions

Is GLM-5.1 better than Qwen3.7 Plus?

Which is cheaper, GLM-5.1 or Qwen3.7 Plus?

Qwen3.7 Plus is cheaper. It lists at $0.40 per million input tokens and $1.60 per million output tokens; GLM-5.1 lists at $1.40 and $4.40.

Is GLM-5.1 or Qwen3.7 Plus better for coding?

GLM-5.1 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 48.7 versus 36.6 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

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

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

25 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-5.1 has 41 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.7 Plus has 32.