# GLM-4.5 vs Qwen-14B

> GLM-4.5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.4 to 30.8 on the Noometry Index.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/glm-4-5-vs-qwen-14b
- Last updated: 2026-10-10
- Shared benchmarks: 10

## Summary

- They share 10 benchmarks with published results for both. GLM-4.5 scores higher in 7 categories and Qwen-14B in 0 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in writing & preference, where GLM-4.5 leads 57.7 to 27.8.

## Snapshot

| | GLM-4.5 | Qwen-14B |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Z.ai (Zhipu) | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 41.4 | 30.8 |
| Rank | 125 | 273 |
| Context | 131K | — |
| Input $/M | $0.60 | — |
| Output $/M | $2.20 | — |
| Weights | Open | Open |

## Coding

- GLM-4.5: 41.1 (#121)
- Qwen-14B: 30.6 (#283)

| Benchmark | GLM-4.5 | Qwen-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1434 | 1072 |
| SWE-bench Verified (bash only) | 54.2% | — |
| WeirdML | 40.6% | — |
| ALE-Bench | 344.82 | — |
| AlgoTune | 1.52 | — |

## Reasoning

- GLM-4.5: 27.7 (#99)
- Qwen-14B: 18.7 (#255)

| Benchmark | GLM-4.5 | Qwen-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1430 | 1027 |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 57.9% | — |
| BIG-Bench Hard | — | 55% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 112.8 |
| LAMBADA | — | 71.1% |
| PIQA | — | 79.9% |

## Math

- GLM-4.5: 36.3 (#119)
- Qwen-14B: 28.7 (#224)

| Benchmark | GLM-4.5 | Qwen-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1427 | 1068 |
| GSM8K | — | 61.3% |

## Knowledge

- GLM-4.5: 35.5 (#172)
- Qwen-14B: —

| Benchmark | GLM-4.5 | Qwen-14B |
|---|---|---|
| Humanity's Last Exam | 8.3% | — |
| Confabulations | 11.3% | — |
| LMArena Expert | 1433 | — |
| ARC (AI2) Challenge | — | 84.4% |
| BoolQ | — | 86.2% |
| MMLU | — | 66.3% |

## Multilingual

- GLM-4.5: 53.0 (#74)
- Qwen-14B: 27.7 (#270)

| Benchmark | GLM-4.5 | Qwen-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1417 | 1042 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1465 | 1077 |
| LMArena French | 1423 | — |
| LMArena German | 1406 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1416 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1382 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1414 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1454 | — |

## Instruction Following

- GLM-4.5: 74.3 (#100)
- Qwen-14B: 52.6 (#284)

| Benchmark | GLM-4.5 | Qwen-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1405 | 1031 |

## Long Context

- GLM-4.5: 38.2 (#196)
- Qwen-14B: 31.3 (#276)

| Benchmark | GLM-4.5 | Qwen-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1413 | 1029 |
| Fiction.LiveBench | 58.3% | — |

## Writing & Preference

- GLM-4.5: 57.7 (#121)
- Qwen-14B: 27.8 (#294)

| Benchmark | GLM-4.5 | Qwen-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1430 | 1051 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1395 | 1028 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1415 | 1022 |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | 73.4% | — |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1343 | — |

## FAQ

### Is GLM-4.5 better than Qwen-14B?

GLM-4.5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.4 to 30.8 on the Noometry Index.

### Is GLM-4.5 or Qwen-14B better for coding?

GLM-4.5 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 41.1 versus 30.6 in the Noometry coding category.

### How many benchmarks do GLM-4.5 and Qwen-14B share?

10 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-4.5 has 27 scored results on Noometry and Qwen-14B has 18.