Model comparison

GLM-5 vs Qwen-VL Max

GLM-5 has enough public results to be ranked (#66); Qwen-VL Max does not yet, so treat this comparison as directional.

Last verified . 0 shared benchmarks.

GLM-5 Z.ai (Zhipu)

46.1

Rank #66 Confirmed

Qwen-VL Max Alibaba (Qwen)

35.9

Unranked Sparse

Summary

  • Qwen-VL Max is cheaper at $0.80 / $3.20 per million input/output tokens, against $1 / $3.20 for GLM-5.
  • GLM-5 accepts more context: 205K tokens versus 131K.
  • GLM-5 has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

GLM-5 and Qwen-VL Max specifications
GLM-5Qwen-VL Max
ProviderZ.ai (Zhipu)Alibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index46.135.9
Released2026-02-112024-01-18
WeightsOpenProprietary
Context window205K131K
Max output131K8K
Input $ / M tokens$1$0.80
Output $ / M tokens$3.20$3.20
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-VL Max: —

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5Qwen-VL Max
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-VL Max: —

Agentic & Tool Use benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5Qwen-VL Max
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-VL Max: —

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5Qwen-VL Max
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 Not comparable

GLM-5: 46.4 (#71), Qwen-VL Max: —

Knowledge Not comparable

GLM-5: 52.3 (#64), Qwen-VL Max: —

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

Multimodal Not comparable

GLM-5: —, Qwen-VL Max: 32.3 (#101)

Multimodal benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5Qwen-VL Max
LMArena Vision—1213
Video-MME—51.3%
SpatialViz-Bench—32%

Multilingual Not comparable

GLM-5: 53.7 (#58), Qwen-VL Max: —

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5Qwen-VL Max
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-VL Max: —

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5Qwen-VL Max
LMArena Instruction Following1428—

Long Context Not comparable

GLM-5: 44.7 (#60), Qwen-VL Max: —

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

Writing & Preference Not comparable

GLM-5: 66.0 (#38), Qwen-VL Max: —

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

Frequently asked questions

Is GLM-5 better than Qwen-VL Max?

GLM-5 has enough public results to be ranked (#66); Qwen-VL Max does not yet, so treat this comparison as directional.

Which is cheaper, GLM-5 or Qwen-VL Max?

Qwen-VL Max is cheaper. It lists at $0.80 per million input tokens and $3.20 per million output tokens; GLM-5 lists at $1 and $3.20.

Which has the bigger context window?

GLM-5 does, with 205K tokens against 131K.

How many benchmarks do GLM-5 and Qwen-VL Max share?

0 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-5 has 45 scored results on Noometry and Qwen-VL Max has 3.

Related comparisons

Go deeper