Noometry

Model comparison

GLM-5.1 vs Qwen3 8B

GLM-5.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 47.8 to 33.7 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3 8B costs 6.9× 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 8B Alibaba (Qwen)

33.7

Rank #238 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 6 benchmarks with published results for both. GLM-5.1 scores higher in 5 categories and Qwen3 8B in 1 category; 6 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in reasoning, where GLM-5.1 leads 39.1 to 16.6.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 93.3% for GLM-5.1 and 56.1% for Qwen3 8B.
  • Qwen3 8B is cheaper at $0.18 / $0.70 per million input/output tokens, against $1.40 / $4.40 for GLM-5.1.
  • GLM-5.1 accepts more context: 200K tokens versus 131K.

Side by side

GLM-5.1Qwen3 8B
ProviderZ.ai (Zhipu)Alibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index47.833.7
Released2026-04-072025-04
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window200K131K
Max output131K8K
Input $ / M tokens$1.40$0.18
Output $ / M tokens$4.40$0.70
Results tracked4111

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 8B: 34.0 (#248)

BenchmarkGLM-5.1Qwen3 8B
SciCode43.8%22.6%
SWE-bench Verified74.2%—
LMArena WebDev1508—
WeirdML57.1%—
LMArena Coding1485—
ALE-Bench887.1—

Agentic & Tool Use Qwen3 8B leads

GLM-5.1: 24.9 (#113), Qwen3 8B: 30.2 (#78)

BenchmarkGLM-5.1Qwen3 8B
APEX-Agents40.9%—
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard—42.6%
ExploitBench18.1%—
GBAEval0%—
Vending-Bench 25,634—

Reasoning GLM-5.1 leads

GLM-5.1: 39.1 (#60), Qwen3 8B: 16.6 (#303)

BenchmarkGLM-5.1Qwen3 8B
CritPt4.6%0%
Chess Puzzles19%5%
Epoch Capabilities Index149.84136.17
SimpleBench55.1%—
NYT Connections (extended)77.7%—
Thematic Generalization69.8%—
LMArena Hard Prompts1472—
DTBench—59.7%
LMCA—8.8%

Math GLM-5.1 leads

GLM-5.1: 49.7 (#60), Qwen3 8B: 34.9 (#191)

BenchmarkGLM-5.1Qwen3 8B
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202593.3%56.1%
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)36.8%—
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 8B: 36.1 (#173)

BenchmarkGLM-5.1Qwen3 8B
GPQA Diamond89.9%56.8%
SimpleQA Verified34%—
Vectara Hallucination Rate—4.8%
LMArena Expert1476—

Multilingual Not comparable

GLM-5.1: 55.0 (#36), Qwen3 8B: —

BenchmarkGLM-5.1Qwen3 8B
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 8B: —

BenchmarkGLM-5.1Qwen3 8B
LMArena Instruction Following1451—

Long Context GLM-5.1 leads

GLM-5.1: 44.9 (#53), Qwen3 8B: 37.9 (#210)

BenchmarkGLM-5.1Qwen3 8B
Fiction.LiveBench—62.1%
LMArena Longer Query1466—

Writing & Preference Not comparable

GLM-5.1: 66.9 (#31), Qwen3 8B: —

BenchmarkGLM-5.1Qwen3 8B
LMArena Text1461—
LMArena Creative Writing1453—
EQ-Bench Creative Writing1592—
LMArena Multi-Turn1472—

Frequently asked questions

Is GLM-5.1 better than Qwen3 8B?

GLM-5.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 47.8 to 33.7 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3 8B costs 6.9× 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 8B?

Qwen3 8B is cheaper. It lists at $0.18 per million input tokens and $0.70 per million output tokens; GLM-5.1 lists at $1.40 and $4.40.

Is GLM-5.1 or Qwen3 8B better for coding?

GLM-5.1 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 48.7 versus 34.0 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

GLM-5.1 does, with 200K tokens against 131K.

How many benchmarks do GLM-5.1 and Qwen3 8B share?

6 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-5.1 has 41 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3 8B has 11.

Related comparisons

Go deeper