# GLM-4.5 vs Qwen1.5-32B

> GLM-4.5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.0 to 30.5 on the Noometry Index.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/glm-4-5-vs-qwen1-5-32b
- Last updated: 2026-10-12
- Shared benchmarks: 17

## Summary

- They share 17 benchmarks with published results for both. GLM-4.5 scores higher in 8 categories and Qwen1.5-32B in 0 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in writing & preference, where GLM-4.5 leads 57.5 to 34.2.

## Snapshot

| | GLM-4.5 | Qwen1.5-32B |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Z.ai (Zhipu) | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 42.0 | 30.5 |
| Rank | 122 | 293 |
| Context | 131K | — |
| Input $/M | $0.60 | — |
| Output $/M | $2.20 | — |
| Weights | Open | Open |

## Coding

- GLM-4.5: 41.4 (#125)
- Qwen1.5-32B: 31.7 (#282)

| Benchmark | GLM-4.5 | Qwen1.5-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1434 | 1155 |
| SWE-bench Verified (bash only) | 54.2% | — |
| WeirdML | 40.6% | — |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | — | 32.3% |
| BigCodeBench Complete | — | 42% |
| ALE-Bench | 344.82 | — |
| AlgoTune | 1.52 | — |

## Reasoning

- GLM-4.5: 28.6 (#100)
- Qwen1.5-32B: 21.8 (#212)

| Benchmark | GLM-4.5 | Qwen1.5-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1429 | 1130 |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 57.9% | — |

## Math

- GLM-4.5: 39.0 (#116)
- Qwen1.5-32B: 33.0 (#207)

| Benchmark | GLM-4.5 | Qwen1.5-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1427 | 1155 |

## Knowledge

- GLM-4.5: 35.9 (#179)
- Qwen1.5-32B: 13.5 (#296)

| Benchmark | GLM-4.5 | Qwen1.5-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1433 | 1126 |
| GPQA Diamond | — | 30.7% |
| Humanity's Last Exam | 8.3% | — |
| Confabulations | 11.3% | — |
| MMLU | — | 74.4% |

## Multilingual

- GLM-4.5: 52.8 (#77)
- Qwen1.5-32B: 31.4 (#259)

| Benchmark | GLM-4.5 | Qwen1.5-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1417 | 1106 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1465 | 1177 |
| LMArena French | 1418 | 1101 |
| LMArena German | 1407 | 1058 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1415 | 1027 |
| LMArena Korean | 1380 | 1008 |
| LMArena Russian | 1414 | 1073 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1454 | 1089 |

## Instruction Following

- GLM-4.5: 74.1 (#104)
- Qwen1.5-32B: 57.7 (#265)

| Benchmark | GLM-4.5 | Qwen1.5-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1404 | 1116 |

## Long Context

- GLM-4.5: 38.2 (#201)
- Qwen1.5-32B: 34.7 (#246)

| Benchmark | GLM-4.5 | Qwen1.5-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1412 | 1146 |
| Fiction.LiveBench | 58.3% | — |

## Writing & Preference

- GLM-4.5: 57.5 (#127)
- Qwen1.5-32B: 34.2 (#271)

| Benchmark | GLM-4.5 | Qwen1.5-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1430 | 1137 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1395 | 1083 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1415 | 1140 |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | 73.4% | — |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1343 | — |

## FAQ

### Is GLM-4.5 better than Qwen1.5-32B?

GLM-4.5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.0 to 30.5 on the Noometry Index.

### Is GLM-4.5 or Qwen1.5-32B better for coding?

GLM-4.5 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 41.4 versus 31.7 in the Noometry coding category.

### How many benchmarks do GLM-4.5 and Qwen1.5-32B share?

17 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-4.5 has 27 scored results on Noometry and Qwen1.5-32B has 21.