# GLM-4.5V vs Qwen2.5-Max

> GLM-4.5V and Qwen2.5-Max score almost the same on the Noometry Index (39.2 vs 40.1), so choose on price, context window or the category you care about most.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/glm-4-5v-vs-qwen2-5-max
- Last updated: 2026-10-10
- Shared benchmarks: 13

## Summary

- They share 13 benchmarks with published results for both. GLM-4.5V scores higher in 3 categories and Qwen2.5-Max in 5 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in multilingual, where Qwen2.5-Max leads 48.3 to 44.9.
- GLM-4.5V has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

## Snapshot

| | GLM-4.5V | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Z.ai (Zhipu) | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 39.2 | 40.1 |
| Rank | 158 | 142 |
| Context | 64K | — |
| Input $/M | $0.60 | — |
| Output $/M | $1.80 | — |
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |

## Coding

- GLM-4.5V: 38.9 (#152)
- Qwen2.5-Max: 41.2 (#118)

| Benchmark | GLM-4.5V | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1347 | 1359 |
| LiveBench Coding | — | 64.4% |

## Reasoning

- GLM-4.5V: 26.5 (#118)
- Qwen2.5-Max: 24.6 (#144)

| Benchmark | GLM-4.5V | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1335 | 1360 |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 59.8% | — |
| LiveBench Reasoning | — | 51.4% |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | — | 67.9% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 132.54 |
| LiveBench | — | 62.3% |

## Math

- GLM-4.5V: 34.7 (#157)
- Qwen2.5-Max: 34.3 (#162)

| Benchmark | GLM-4.5V | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1353 | 1369 |
| LiveBench Math | — | 58.4% |

## Knowledge

- GLM-4.5V: 36.8 (#155)
- Qwen2.5-Max: 34.8 (#181)

| Benchmark | GLM-4.5V | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1353 | 1337 |
| Confabulations | — | 21.8% |

## Multimodal

- GLM-4.5V: 33.6 (#86)
- Qwen2.5-Max: —

| Benchmark | GLM-4.5V | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1154 | — |

## Multilingual

- GLM-4.5V: 44.9 (#172)
- Qwen2.5-Max: 48.3 (#140)

| Benchmark | GLM-4.5V | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1304 | 1352 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1338 | 1382 |
| LMArena Russian | 1299 | 1353 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1335 | 1377 |
| LMArena French | — | 1396 |
| LMArena German | — | 1350 |
| LMArena Japanese | — | 1299 |
| LMArena Korean | — | 1304 |

## Instruction Following

- GLM-4.5V: 69.4 (#170)
- Qwen2.5-Max: 71.5 (#147)

| Benchmark | GLM-4.5V | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1311 | 1335 |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | — | 75.3% |

## Long Context

- GLM-4.5V: 39.6 (#166)
- Qwen2.5-Max: 41.3 (#137)

| Benchmark | GLM-4.5V | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1305 | 1358 |

## Writing & Preference

- GLM-4.5V: 52.7 (#162)
- Qwen2.5-Max: 55.6 (#141)

| Benchmark | GLM-4.5V | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1333 | 1367 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1295 | 1339 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1333 | 1364 |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | — | 72.9% |
| LiveBench Language | — | 56.3% |

## FAQ

### Is GLM-4.5V better than Qwen2.5-Max?

GLM-4.5V and Qwen2.5-Max score almost the same on the Noometry Index (39.2 vs 40.1), so choose on price, context window or the category you care about most.

### Is GLM-4.5V or Qwen2.5-Max better for coding?

Qwen2.5-Max scores higher on coding benchmarks: 41.2 versus 38.9 in the Noometry coding category.

### How many benchmarks do GLM-4.5V and Qwen2.5-Max share?

13 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-4.5V has 15 scored results on Noometry and Qwen2.5-Max has 27.