# GLM-4.5 vs Qwen Plus

> GLM-4.5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.0 to 37.1 on the Noometry Index. Qwen Plus costs 1.7× less per token, which makes it the better buy when GLM-4.5's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/glm-4-5-vs-qwen-plus
- Last updated: 2026-10-11
- Shared benchmarks: 14

## Summary

- They share 14 benchmarks with published results for both. GLM-4.5 scores higher in 7 categories and Qwen Plus in 1 category; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where GLM-4.5 leads 39.0 to 23.3.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is Kagi LLM Benchmark: 57.9% for GLM-4.5 and 63.3% for Qwen Plus.
- Qwen Plus is cheaper at $0.40 / $1.20 per million input/output tokens, against $0.60 / $2.20 for GLM-4.5.
- Qwen Plus accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 131K.
- GLM-4.5 has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

## Snapshot

| | GLM-4.5 | Qwen Plus |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Z.ai (Zhipu) | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 42.0 | 37.1 |
| Rank | 122 | 210 |
| Context | 131K | 1M |
| Input $/M | $0.60 | $0.40 |
| Output $/M | $2.20 | $1.20 |
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |

## Coding

- GLM-4.5: 41.4 (#125)
- Qwen Plus: 38.9 (#167)

| Benchmark | GLM-4.5 | Qwen Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1434 | 1328 |
| SWE-bench Verified (bash only) | 54.2% | — |
| WeirdML | 40.6% | — |
| ALE-Bench | 344.82 | — |
| AlgoTune | 1.52 | — |

## Reasoning

- GLM-4.5: 28.6 (#100)
- Qwen Plus: 28.4 (#107)

| Benchmark | GLM-4.5 | Qwen Plus |
|---|---|---|
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 57.9% | 63.3% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1429 | 1317 |
| DTBench | — | 81.1% |
| LMCA | — | 24% |

## Math

- GLM-4.5: 39.0 (#116)
- Qwen Plus: 23.3 (#271)

| Benchmark | GLM-4.5 | Qwen Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1427 | 1326 |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 17.8% |
| MATH Level 5 | — | 65.3% |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | — | 1.7% |

## Knowledge

- GLM-4.5: 35.9 (#179)
- Qwen Plus: 27.4 (#251)

| Benchmark | GLM-4.5 | Qwen Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1433 | 1328 |
| GPQA Diamond | — | 48.1% |
| Humanity's Last Exam | 8.3% | — |
| Confabulations | 11.3% | — |

## Multilingual

- GLM-4.5: 52.8 (#77)
- Qwen Plus: 45.1 (#175)

| Benchmark | GLM-4.5 | Qwen Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1417 | 1310 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1465 | 1347 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1415 | 1251 |
| LMArena Russian | 1414 | 1323 |
| LMArena French | 1418 | — |
| LMArena German | 1407 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1380 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1454 | — |

## Instruction Following

- GLM-4.5: 74.1 (#104)
- Qwen Plus: 68.8 (#181)

| Benchmark | GLM-4.5 | Qwen Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1404 | 1303 |

## Long Context

- GLM-4.5: 38.2 (#201)
- Qwen Plus: 40.3 (#158)

| Benchmark | GLM-4.5 | Qwen Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1412 | 1324 |
| Fiction.LiveBench | 58.3% | — |

## Writing & Preference

- GLM-4.5: 57.5 (#127)
- Qwen Plus: 52.2 (#176)

| Benchmark | GLM-4.5 | Qwen Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1430 | 1326 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1395 | 1293 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1415 | 1336 |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | 73.4% | — |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1343 | — |

## FAQ

### Is GLM-4.5 better than Qwen Plus?

GLM-4.5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.0 to 37.1 on the Noometry Index. Qwen Plus costs 1.7× less per token, which makes it the better buy when GLM-4.5's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

### Which is cheaper, GLM-4.5 or Qwen Plus?

Qwen Plus is cheaper. It lists at $0.40 per million input tokens and $1.20 per million output tokens; GLM-4.5 lists at $0.60 and $2.20.

### Is GLM-4.5 or Qwen Plus better for coding?

GLM-4.5 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 41.4 versus 38.9 in the Noometry coding category.

### Which has the bigger context window?

Qwen Plus does, with 1M tokens against 131K.

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

14 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-4.5 has 27 scored results on Noometry and Qwen Plus has 20.