Noometry

Model comparison

GLM-5.1 vs QwQ-32B

GLM-5.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 47.8 to 39.8 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 22 shared benchmarks.

GLM-5.1 Z.ai (Zhipu)

47.8

Rank #59 Confirmed

QwQ-32B Alibaba (Qwen)

39.8

Rank #159 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 22 benchmarks with published results for both. GLM-5.1 scores higher in 7 categories and QwQ-32B in 1 category; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in knowledge, where GLM-5.1 leads 54.9 to 37.2.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 93.3% for GLM-5.1 and 59.2% for QwQ-32B.

Side by side

GLM-5.1QwQ-32B
ProviderZ.ai (Zhipu)Alibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index47.839.8
Released2026-04-072024-11-28
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window200K—
Max output131K—
Input $ / M tokens$1.40—
Output $ / M tokens$4.40—
Results tracked4136

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), QwQ-32B: 35.4 (#226)

BenchmarkGLM-5.1QwQ-32B
LMArena Coding14851333
SWE-bench Verified74.2%—
Aider Polyglot—20.9%
LMArena WebDev1508—
SciCode43.8%—
WeirdML57.1%—
BigCodeBench Instruct—44.6%
LiveBench Coding—72.2%
BigCodeBench Complete—54.4%
ALE-Bench887.1—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

GLM-5.1: 24.9 (#113), QwQ-32B: —

BenchmarkGLM-5.1QwQ-32B
APEX-Agents40.9%—
ExploitBench18.1%—
GBAEval0%—
Vending-Bench 25,634—

Reasoning GLM-5.1 leads

GLM-5.1: 39.1 (#60), QwQ-32B: 23.7 (#174)

BenchmarkGLM-5.1QwQ-32B
Chess Puzzles19%5%
LMArena Hard Prompts14721325
Epoch Capabilities Index149.84137.6
SimpleBench55.1%—
NYT Connections (extended)77.7%—
CritPt4.6%—
Thematic Generalization69.8%—
LiveBench Reasoning—83.5%
LiveBench Data Analysis—65%
ForecastBench—58.3
LiveBench—72%

Math GLM-5.1 leads

GLM-5.1: 49.7 (#60), QwQ-32B: 38.0 (#143)

BenchmarkGLM-5.1QwQ-32B
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202593.3%59.2%
LMArena Math14731359
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)36.8%—
MathArena Final-Answer Competitions67.1%—
ProofBench22.2%—
LiveBench Math—77.8%
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)33.4%—
FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1)12.5%—

Knowledge GLM-5.1 leads

GLM-5.1: 54.9 (#50), QwQ-32B: 37.2 (#158)

BenchmarkGLM-5.1QwQ-32B
GPQA Diamond89.9%65.3%
LMArena Expert14761324
SimpleQA Verified34%—
Confabulations—15.6%

Multilingual GLM-5.1 leads

GLM-5.1: 55.0 (#36), QwQ-32B: 44.8 (#176)

BenchmarkGLM-5.1QwQ-32B
LMArena Non-English14471305
LMArena Chinese15151378
LMArena French14741336
LMArena German14651313
LMArena Japanese14341262
LMArena Korean14181279
LMArena Russian14541297
LMArena Spanish14691354

Instruction Following GLM-5.1 leads

GLM-5.1: 76.3 (#42), QwQ-32B: 72.6 (#137)

BenchmarkGLM-5.1QwQ-32B
LMArena Instruction Following14511297
LiveBench Instruction Following—81.8%

Long Context QwQ-32B leads

GLM-5.1: 44.9 (#53), QwQ-32B: 49.0 (#11)

BenchmarkGLM-5.1QwQ-32B
LMArena Longer Query14661308
Fiction.LiveBench—83.3%

Writing & Preference GLM-5.1 leads

GLM-5.1: 66.9 (#31), QwQ-32B: 50.6 (#180)

BenchmarkGLM-5.1QwQ-32B
LMArena Text14611329
LMArena Creative Writing14531288
EQ-Bench Creative Writing15921257
LMArena Multi-Turn14721314
Short-Story Creative Writing—80.2%
LiveBench Language—51.4%

Frequently asked questions

Is GLM-5.1 better than QwQ-32B?

GLM-5.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 47.8 to 39.8 on the Noometry Index.

Is GLM-5.1 or QwQ-32B better for coding?

GLM-5.1 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 48.7 versus 35.4 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do GLM-5.1 and QwQ-32B share?

22 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-5.1 has 41 scored results on Noometry and QwQ-32B has 36.

Related comparisons

Go deeper