Model comparison

GLM-5 vs Qwen Turbo

GLM-5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 46.1 to 27.1 on the Noometry Index. Qwen Turbo costs 18× less per token, which makes it the better buy when GLM-5's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Last verified . 2 shared benchmarks.

GLM-5 Z.ai (Zhipu)

46.1

Rank #66 Confirmed

Qwen Turbo Alibaba (Qwen)

27.1

Rank #335 Reported

Summary

  • They share 2 benchmarks with published results for both. GLM-5 scores higher in 2 categories and Qwen Turbo in 0 categories; 2 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in math, where GLM-5 leads 46.4 to 15.3.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 80% for GLM-5 and 6.1% for Qwen Turbo.
  • Qwen Turbo is cheaper at $0.05 / $0.20 per million input/output tokens, against $1 / $3.20 for GLM-5.
  • Qwen Turbo accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 205K.
  • GLM-5 has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

GLM-5 and Qwen Turbo specifications
GLM-5Qwen Turbo
ProviderZ.ai (Zhipu)Alibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index46.127.1
Released2026-02-112024-11-01
WeightsOpenProprietary
Context window205K1M
Max output131K16K
Input $ / M tokens$1$0.05
Output $ / M tokens$3.20$0.20
Results tracked453

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

Category by category

Coding Not comparable

GLM-5: 49.0 (#52), Qwen Turbo: —

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5Qwen Turbo
SWE-bench Verified72.1%—
SWE-bench Verified (bash only)72.8%—
LMArena WebDev1434—
SWE-bench Multilingual69.7%—
WeirdML48.2%—
LMArena Coding1461—
ALE-Bench765.62—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

GLM-5: 31.1 (#71), Qwen Turbo: —

Agentic & Tool Use benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5Qwen Turbo
Terminal-Bench52.4%—
τ²-bench Airline82.5%—
τ²-bench Banking9.8%—
τ²-bench Retail73.7%—
τ²-bench Telecom86.8%—
Vending-Bench 24,432—

Reasoning Not comparable

GLM-5: 27.6 (#116), Qwen Turbo: —

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5Qwen Turbo
ARC-AGI-24.9%—
SimpleBench53.2%—
Kagi LLM Benchmark75%—
NYT Connections (extended)74.8%—
ARC-AGI-144.7%—
Chess Puzzles10%—
LMArena Hard Prompts1452—
Epoch Capabilities Index145.83—
ForecastBench61—

Math GLM-5 leads

GLM-5: 46.4 (#71), Qwen Turbo: 15.3 (#297)

Knowledge GLM-5 leads

GLM-5: 52.3 (#64), Qwen Turbo: 22.2 (#272)

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5Qwen Turbo
GPQA Diamond87.8%41.8%
Vectara Hallucination Rate10.1%—
LMArena Expert1454—

Multilingual Not comparable

GLM-5: 53.7 (#58), Qwen Turbo: —

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5Qwen Turbo
LMArena Non-English1430—
LMArena Chinese1511—
LMArena French1455—
LMArena German1445—
LMArena Japanese1416—
LMArena Korean1423—
LMArena Russian1436—
LMArena Spanish1454—

Instruction Following Not comparable

GLM-5: 75.2 (#67), Qwen Turbo: —

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5Qwen Turbo
LMArena Instruction Following1428—

Long Context Not comparable

GLM-5: 44.7 (#60), Qwen Turbo: —

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5Qwen Turbo
CL-bench18.7%—
LMArena Longer Query1446—

Writing & Preference Not comparable

GLM-5: 66.0 (#38), Qwen Turbo: —

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5Qwen Turbo
LMArena Text1446—
LMArena Creative Writing1439—
EQ-Bench Creative Writing1601—
LMArena Multi-Turn1456—

Frequently asked questions

Is GLM-5 better than Qwen Turbo?

GLM-5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 46.1 to 27.1 on the Noometry Index. Qwen Turbo costs 18× less per token, which makes it the better buy when GLM-5's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Which is cheaper, GLM-5 or Qwen Turbo?

Qwen Turbo is cheaper. It lists at $0.05 per million input tokens and $0.20 per million output tokens; GLM-5 lists at $1 and $3.20.

Which has the bigger context window?

Qwen Turbo does, with 1M tokens against 205K.

How many benchmarks do GLM-5 and Qwen Turbo share?

2 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-5 has 45 scored results on Noometry and Qwen Turbo has 3.

Related comparisons

Go deeper