Model comparison

GLM-5 vs Qwen1.5-72B

GLM-5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 46.1 to 30.8 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 18 shared benchmarks.

GLM-5 Z.ai (Zhipu)

46.1

Rank #66 Confirmed

Qwen1.5-72B Alibaba (Qwen)

30.8

Rank #285 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 18 benchmarks with published results for both. GLM-5 scores higher in 8 categories and Qwen1.5-72B in 0 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in knowledge, where GLM-5 leads 52.3 to 11.5.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is GPQA Diamond: 87.8% for GLM-5 and 28.8% for Qwen1.5-72B.

Side by side

GLM-5 and Qwen1.5-72B specifications
GLM-5Qwen1.5-72B
ProviderZ.ai (Zhipu)Alibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index46.130.8
Released2026-02-112024-02-04
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window205K—
Max output131K—
Input $ / M tokens$1—
Output $ / M tokens$3.20—
Results tracked4522

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

Category by category

Coding GLM-5 leads

GLM-5: 49.0 (#52), Qwen1.5-72B: 31.9 (#277)

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5Qwen1.5-72B
LMArena Coding14611165
SWE-bench Verified72.1%—
SWE-bench Verified (bash only)72.8%—
LMArena WebDev1434—
SWE-bench Multilingual69.7%—
WeirdML48.2%—
BigCodeBench Instruct—33.2%
BigCodeBench Complete—40.3%
ALE-Bench765.62—
HumanEval+—59.1%
MBPP+—61.6%

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

GLM-5: 31.1 (#71), Qwen1.5-72B: —

Agentic & Tool Use benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5Qwen1.5-72B
Terminal-Bench52.4%—
τ²-bench Airline82.5%—
τ²-bench Banking9.8%—
τ²-bench Retail73.7%—
τ²-bench Telecom86.8%—
Vending-Bench 24,432—

Reasoning GLM-5 leads

GLM-5: 27.6 (#116), Qwen1.5-72B: 22.2 (#203)

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5Qwen1.5-72B
LMArena Hard Prompts14521148
ARC-AGI-24.9%—
SimpleBench53.2%—
Kagi LLM Benchmark75%—
NYT Connections (extended)74.8%—
ARC-AGI-144.7%—
Chess Puzzles10%—
Epoch Capabilities Index145.83—
ForecastBench61—

Math GLM-5 leads

GLM-5: 46.4 (#71), Qwen1.5-72B: 33.2 (#205)

Knowledge GLM-5 leads

GLM-5: 52.3 (#64), Qwen1.5-72B: 11.5 (#300)

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5Qwen1.5-72B
GPQA Diamond87.8%28.8%
LMArena Expert14541136
Vectara Hallucination Rate10.1%—

Multilingual GLM-5 leads

GLM-5: 53.7 (#58), Qwen1.5-72B: 33.2 (#253)

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5Qwen1.5-72B
LMArena Non-English14301135
LMArena Chinese15111186
LMArena French14551159
LMArena German14451084
LMArena Japanese14161061
LMArena Korean14231050
LMArena Russian14361104
LMArena Spanish14541110

Instruction Following GLM-5 leads

GLM-5: 75.2 (#67), Qwen1.5-72B: 59.3 (#256)

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5Qwen1.5-72B
LMArena Instruction Following14281141

Long Context GLM-5 leads

GLM-5: 44.7 (#60), Qwen1.5-72B: 35.1 (#243)

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5Qwen1.5-72B
LMArena Longer Query14461157
CL-bench18.7%—

Writing & Preference GLM-5 leads

GLM-5: 66.0 (#38), Qwen1.5-72B: 37.3 (#258)

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5Qwen1.5-72B
LMArena Text14461166
LMArena Creative Writing14391137
LMArena Multi-Turn14561160
EQ-Bench Creative Writing1601—

Frequently asked questions

Is GLM-5 better than Qwen1.5-72B?

GLM-5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 46.1 to 30.8 on the Noometry Index.

Is GLM-5 or Qwen1.5-72B better for coding?

GLM-5 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 49.0 versus 31.9 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do GLM-5 and Qwen1.5-72B share?

18 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-5 has 45 scored results on Noometry and Qwen1.5-72B has 22.

Related comparisons

Go deeper