Noometry

Model comparison

GLM-5V-Turbo vs Qwen3.6 Plus

Qwen3.6 Plus is the stronger model overall, scoring 47.5 to 43.8 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 17 shared benchmarks.

GLM-5V-Turbo Z.ai (Zhipu)

43.8

Rank #84 Confirmed

Qwen3.6 Plus Alibaba (Qwen)

47.5

Rank #62 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 17 benchmarks with published results for both. GLM-5V-Turbo scores higher in 3 categories and Qwen3.6 Plus in 5 categories; 4 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in knowledge, where Qwen3.6 Plus leads 56.1 to 40.6.
  • Qwen3.6 Plus is cheaper at $0.50 / $3 per million input/output tokens, against $1.20 / $4 for GLM-5V-Turbo.
  • Qwen3.6 Plus accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 200K.

Side by side

GLM-5V-TurboQwen3.6 Plus
ProviderZ.ai (Zhipu)Alibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index43.847.5
Released2026-04-012026-03-31
WeightsProprietaryProprietary
Context window200K1M
Max output131K66K
Input $ / M tokens$1.20$0.50
Output $ / M tokens$4$3
Results tracked1937

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

Category by category

Coding GLM-5V-Turbo leads

GLM-5V-Turbo: 42.1 (#111), Qwen3.6 Plus: 40.8 (#130)

BenchmarkGLM-5V-TurboQwen3.6 Plus
LMArena WebDev14011461
LMArena Coding14661467
SWE-bench Verified—57.9%
SciCode—40.7%
ALE-Bench—670.15

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

GLM-5V-Turbo: —, Qwen3.6 Plus: —

BenchmarkGLM-5V-TurboQwen3.6 Plus
Vending-Bench 2—5,115

Reasoning Too close to call

GLM-5V-Turbo: 29.7 (#89), Qwen3.6 Plus: 29.3 (#93)

BenchmarkGLM-5V-TurboQwen3.6 Plus
LMArena Hard Prompts14431449
NYT Connections (extended)—60.3%
CritPt—2.9%
Chess Puzzles—17%
Thematic Generalization—59.5%
Mystery Game Puzzles—12%
DTBench—81.9%
LMCA—33.1%
Epoch Capabilities Index—147.65

Math Qwen3.6 Plus leads

GLM-5V-Turbo: 39.4 (#106), Qwen3.6 Plus: 51.8 (#54)

BenchmarkGLM-5V-TurboQwen3.6 Plus
LMArena Math14411450
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)—38.2%
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025—93.3%
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)—26.2%
FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1)—8.3%

Knowledge Qwen3.6 Plus leads

GLM-5V-Turbo: 40.6 (#117), Qwen3.6 Plus: 56.1 (#45)

BenchmarkGLM-5V-TurboQwen3.6 Plus
LMArena Expert14521454
GPQA Diamond—88.4%
SimpleQA Verified—44.1%

Multimodal Not comparable

GLM-5V-Turbo: 40.9 (#42), Qwen3.6 Plus: —

BenchmarkGLM-5V-TurboQwen3.6 Plus
LMArena Vision1264—
LMArena Document1416—

Multilingual Too close to call

GLM-5V-Turbo: 53.0 (#73), Qwen3.6 Plus: 53.3 (#70)

BenchmarkGLM-5V-TurboQwen3.6 Plus
LMArena Non-English14201424
LMArena Chinese14881477
LMArena French14441455
LMArena German14231452
LMArena Korean13961379
LMArena Russian14311434
LMArena Spanish14501432
LMArena Japanese—1389

Instruction Following Too close to call

GLM-5V-Turbo: 75.0 (#80), Qwen3.6 Plus: 75.0 (#74)

BenchmarkGLM-5V-TurboQwen3.6 Plus
LMArena Instruction Following14231425

Long Context Qwen3.6 Plus leads

GLM-5V-Turbo: 44.0 (#80), Qwen3.6 Plus: 45.2 (#49)

BenchmarkGLM-5V-TurboQwen3.6 Plus
LMArena Longer Query14381439
CL-bench—20.3%

Writing & Preference Too close to call

GLM-5V-Turbo: 62.5 (#73), Qwen3.6 Plus: 62.2 (#82)

BenchmarkGLM-5V-TurboQwen3.6 Plus
LMArena Text14371437
LMArena Creative Writing14161404
LMArena Multi-Turn14321438

Frequently asked questions

Is GLM-5V-Turbo better than Qwen3.6 Plus?

Qwen3.6 Plus is the stronger model overall, scoring 47.5 to 43.8 on the Noometry Index.

Which is cheaper, GLM-5V-Turbo or Qwen3.6 Plus?

Qwen3.6 Plus is cheaper. It lists at $0.50 per million input tokens and $3 per million output tokens; GLM-5V-Turbo lists at $1.20 and $4.

Is GLM-5V-Turbo or Qwen3.6 Plus better for coding?

GLM-5V-Turbo scores higher on coding benchmarks: 42.1 versus 40.8 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Qwen3.6 Plus does, with 1M tokens against 200K.

How many benchmarks do GLM-5V-Turbo and Qwen3.6 Plus share?

17 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-5V-Turbo has 19 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.6 Plus has 37.

Related comparisons

Go deeper