# GLM-4.5 vs Qwen3 32B

> GLM-4.5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.0 to 39.2 on the Noometry Index.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/glm-4-5-vs-qwen3-32b
- Last updated: 2026-10-10
- Shared benchmarks: 15

## Summary

- They share 15 benchmarks with published results for both. GLM-4.5 scores higher in 5 categories and Qwen3 32B in 3 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in reasoning, where GLM-4.5 leads 28.6 to 20.2.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is Fiction.LiveBench: 58.3% for GLM-4.5 and 74.2% for Qwen3 32B.
- GLM-4.5 is cheaper at $0.60 / $2.20 per million input/output tokens, against $0.70 / $2.80 for Qwen3 32B.

## Snapshot

| | GLM-4.5 | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Z.ai (Zhipu) | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 42.0 | 39.2 |
| Rank | 122 | 172 |
| Context | 131K | 131K |
| Input $/M | $0.60 | $0.70 |
| Output $/M | $2.20 | $2.80 |
| Weights | Open | Open |

## Coding

- GLM-4.5: 41.4 (#125)
- Qwen3 32B: 37.7 (#190)

| Benchmark | GLM-4.5 | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1434 | 1358 |
| SWE-bench Verified (bash only) | 54.2% | — |
| Aider Polyglot | — | 40% |
| SciCode | — | 35.4% |
| WeirdML | 40.6% | — |
| ALE-Bench | 344.82 | — |
| AlgoTune | 1.52 | — |

## Agentic & Tool Use

- GLM-4.5: —
- Qwen3 32B: 32.6 (#62)

| Benchmark | GLM-4.5 | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | — | 48.7% |

## Reasoning

- GLM-4.5: 28.6 (#100)
- Qwen3 32B: 20.2 (#241)

| Benchmark | GLM-4.5 | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 57.9% | 54.9% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1429 | 1334 |
| CritPt | — | 0.3% |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 5% |
| DTBench | — | 67.5% |
| LMCA | — | 17.3% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 138.51 |

## Math

- GLM-4.5: 39.0 (#116)
- Qwen3 32B: 39.7 (#99)

| Benchmark | GLM-4.5 | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1427 | 1399 |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 66.9% |

## Knowledge

- GLM-4.5: 35.9 (#179)
- Qwen3 32B: 40.0 (#125)

| Benchmark | GLM-4.5 | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1433 | 1362 |
| GPQA Diamond | — | 65.7% |
| Humanity's Last Exam | 8.3% | — |
| Confabulations | 11.3% | — |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | — | 5.9% |

## Multilingual

- GLM-4.5: 52.8 (#77)
- Qwen3 32B: 45.6 (#167)

| Benchmark | GLM-4.5 | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1417 | 1317 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1465 | 1357 |
| LMArena German | 1407 | 1341 |
| LMArena Russian | 1414 | 1311 |
| LMArena French | 1418 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1415 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1380 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1454 | — |

## Instruction Following

- GLM-4.5: 74.1 (#104)
- Qwen3 32B: 68.9 (#179)

| Benchmark | GLM-4.5 | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1404 | 1305 |

## Long Context

- GLM-4.5: 38.2 (#201)
- Qwen3 32B: 43.8 (#87)

| Benchmark | GLM-4.5 | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|
| Fiction.LiveBench | 58.3% | 74.2% |
| LMArena Longer Query | 1412 | 1327 |

## Writing & Preference

- GLM-4.5: 57.5 (#127)
- Qwen3 32B: 52.9 (#163)

| Benchmark | GLM-4.5 | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1430 | 1340 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1395 | 1297 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1415 | 1331 |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | 73.4% | — |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1343 | — |

## FAQ

### Is GLM-4.5 better than Qwen3 32B?

GLM-4.5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.0 to 39.2 on the Noometry Index.

### Which is cheaper, GLM-4.5 or Qwen3 32B?

GLM-4.5 is cheaper. It lists at $0.60 per million input tokens and $2.20 per million output tokens; Qwen3 32B lists at $0.70 and $2.80.

### Is GLM-4.5 or Qwen3 32B better for coding?

GLM-4.5 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 41.4 versus 37.7 in the Noometry coding category.

### Which has the bigger context window?

Both accept 131K tokens.

### How many benchmarks do GLM-4.5 and Qwen3 32B share?

15 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-4.5 has 27 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3 32B has 26.