Model comparison
GLM-5 vs Qwen3.5 27B
GLM-5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 46.1 to 41.9 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3.5 27B costs 1.9× less per token, which makes it the better buy when GLM-5's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 24 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 24 benchmarks with published results for both. GLM-5 scores higher in 8 categories and Qwen3.5 27B in 0 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in knowledge, where GLM-5 leads 52.3 to 38.0.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is NYT Connections (extended): 74.8% for GLM-5 and 47.9% for Qwen3.5 27B.
- Qwen3.5 27B is cheaper at $0.30 / $2.40 per million input/output tokens, against $1 / $3.20 for GLM-5.
- Qwen3.5 27B accepts more context: 262K tokens versus 205K.
Side by side
| GLM-5 | Qwen3.5 27B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Z.ai (Zhipu) | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 46.1 | 41.9 |
| Released | 2026-02-11 | 2026-02-23 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | 205K | 262K |
| Max output | 131K | 66K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $1 | $0.30 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $3.20 | $2.40 |
| Results tracked | 45 | 28 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding GLM-5 leads
GLM-5: 49.0 (#52), Qwen3.5 27B: 38.9 (#168)
| Benchmark | GLM-5 | Qwen3.5 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena WebDev | 1434 | 1358 |
| WeirdML | 48.2% | 39.5% |
| LMArena Coding | 1461 | 1427 |
| ALE-Bench | 765.62 | 349.45 |
| SWE-bench Verified | 72.1% | — |
| SWE-bench Verified (bash only) | 72.8% | — |
| SWE-bench Multilingual | 69.7% | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
GLM-5: 31.1 (#71), Qwen3.5 27B: —
| Benchmark | GLM-5 | Qwen3.5 27B |
|---|---|---|
| Vending-Bench 2 | 4,432 | 201.98 |
| Terminal-Bench | 52.4% | — |
| τ²-bench Airline | 82.5% | — |
| τ²-bench Banking | 9.8% | — |
| τ²-bench Retail | 73.7% | — |
| τ²-bench Telecom | 86.8% | — |
Reasoning Too close to call
GLM-5: 27.6 (#116), Qwen3.5 27B: 27.5 (#117)
| Benchmark | GLM-5 | Qwen3.5 27B |
|---|---|---|
| NYT Connections (extended) | 74.8% | 47.9% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1452 | 1414 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 4.9% | — |
| SimpleBench | 53.2% | — |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 75% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 44.7% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | 10% | — |
| Thematic Generalization | — | 45.5% |
| DTBench | — | 82.4% |
| LMCA | — | 34% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 145.83 | — |
| ForecastBench | 61 | — |
Math GLM-5 leads
GLM-5: 46.4 (#71), Qwen3.5 27B: 38.8 (#127)
| Benchmark | GLM-5 | Qwen3.5 27B |
|---|---|---|
| MathArena Final-Answer Competitions | 65.7% | 56.7% |
| LMArena Math | 1440 | 1429 |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 80% | — |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 16.4% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | 2.1% | — |
Knowledge GLM-5 leads
GLM-5: 52.3 (#64), Qwen3.5 27B: 38.0 (#150)
| Benchmark | GLM-5 | Qwen3.5 27B |
|---|---|---|
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 10.1% | 12.1% |
| LMArena Expert | 1454 | 1428 |
| GPQA Diamond | 87.8% | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
GLM-5: —, Qwen3.5 27B: 39.4 (#59)
| Benchmark | GLM-5 | Qwen3.5 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | — | 1241 |
Multilingual GLM-5 leads
GLM-5: 53.7 (#58), Qwen3.5 27B: 50.8 (#115)
| Benchmark | GLM-5 | Qwen3.5 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1430 | 1390 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1511 | 1478 |
| LMArena French | 1455 | 1410 |
| LMArena German | 1445 | 1393 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1416 | 1345 |
| LMArena Korean | 1423 | 1358 |
| LMArena Russian | 1436 | 1390 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1454 | 1407 |
Instruction Following GLM-5 leads
GLM-5: 75.2 (#67), Qwen3.5 27B: 73.5 (#119)
| Benchmark | GLM-5 | Qwen3.5 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1428 | 1393 |
Long Context GLM-5 leads
GLM-5: 44.7 (#60), Qwen3.5 27B: 43.1 (#106)
| Benchmark | GLM-5 | Qwen3.5 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1446 | 1413 |
| CL-bench | 18.7% | — |
Writing & Preference GLM-5 leads
GLM-5: 66.0 (#38), Qwen3.5 27B: 59.3 (#111)
| Benchmark | GLM-5 | Qwen3.5 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1446 | 1409 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1439 | 1362 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1456 | 1410 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1601 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is GLM-5 better than Qwen3.5 27B?
GLM-5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 46.1 to 41.9 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3.5 27B costs 1.9× 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 Qwen3.5 27B?
Qwen3.5 27B is cheaper. It lists at $0.30 per million input tokens and $2.40 per million output tokens; GLM-5 lists at $1 and $3.20.
Is GLM-5 or Qwen3.5 27B better for coding?
GLM-5 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 49.0 versus 38.9 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Qwen3.5 27B does, with 262K tokens against 205K.
How many benchmarks do GLM-5 and Qwen3.5 27B share?
24 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-5 has 45 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.5 27B has 28.