# GLM-5.1 vs Qwen1.5-7B

> GLM-5.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 47.6 to 30.8 on the Noometry Index.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/glm-5-1-vs-qwen1-5-7b
- Last updated: 2026-10-10
- Shared benchmarks: 12

## Summary

- They share 12 benchmarks with published results for both. GLM-5.1 scores higher in 8 categories and Qwen1.5-7B in 0 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in writing & preference, where GLM-5.1 leads 67.2 to 29.8.

## Snapshot

| | GLM-5.1 | Qwen1.5-7B |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Z.ai (Zhipu) | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 47.6 | 30.8 |
| Rank | 51 | 270 |
| Context | 200K | — |
| Input $/M | $1.40 | — |
| Output $/M | $4.40 | — |
| Weights | Open | Open |

## Coding

- GLM-5.1: 48.5 (#52)
- Qwen1.5-7B: 31.6 (#271)

| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | Qwen1.5-7B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1486 | 1107 |
| SWE-bench Verified | 74.2% | — |
| LMArena WebDev | 1509 | — |
| SciCode | 43.8% | — |
| WeirdML | 57.1% | — |
| ALE-Bench | 887.1 | — |

## Agentic & Tool Use

- GLM-5.1: 24.8 (#106)
- Qwen1.5-7B: —

| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | Qwen1.5-7B |
|---|---|---|
| APEX-Agents | 40.9% | — |
| ExploitBench | 18.1% | — |
| GBAEval | 0% | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | 5,634 | — |

## Reasoning

- GLM-5.1: 38.2 (#57)
- Qwen1.5-7B: 19.5 (#237)

| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | Qwen1.5-7B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1472 | 1066 |
| SimpleBench | 55.1% | — |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 77.7% | — |
| CritPt | 4.6% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | 19% | — |
| Thematic Generalization | 69.8% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 149.86 | — |

## Math

- GLM-5.1: 49.0 (#48)
- Qwen1.5-7B: 29.0 (#222)

| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | Qwen1.5-7B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1472 | 1080 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 36.8% | — |
| MathArena Final-Answer Competitions | 67.1% | — |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 93.3% | — |
| ProofBench | 22.2% | — |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 33.4% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | 12.5% | — |

## Knowledge

- GLM-5.1: 55.0 (#45)
- Qwen1.5-7B: 28.2 (#239)

| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | Qwen1.5-7B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1477 | 1055 |
| GPQA Diamond | 89.9% | — |
| SimpleQA Verified | 34% | — |
| MMLU | — | 62.6% |

## Multilingual

- GLM-5.1: 55.2 (#34)
- Qwen1.5-7B: 28.6 (#266)

| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | Qwen1.5-7B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1448 | 1058 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1516 | 1140 |
| LMArena Russian | 1453 | 1006 |
| LMArena French | 1478 | — |
| LMArena German | 1466 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1436 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1423 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1467 | — |

## Instruction Following

- GLM-5.1: 76.5 (#41)
- Qwen1.5-7B: 54.4 (#276)

| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | Qwen1.5-7B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1451 | 1058 |

## Long Context

- GLM-5.1: 44.9 (#51)
- Qwen1.5-7B: 33.1 (#261)

| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | Qwen1.5-7B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1467 | 1090 |

## Writing & Preference

- GLM-5.1: 67.2 (#29)
- Qwen1.5-7B: 29.8 (#288)

| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | Qwen1.5-7B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1462 | 1084 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1454 | 1035 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1473 | 1061 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1592 | — |

## FAQ

### Is GLM-5.1 better than Qwen1.5-7B?

GLM-5.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 47.6 to 30.8 on the Noometry Index.

### Is GLM-5.1 or Qwen1.5-7B better for coding?

GLM-5.1 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 48.5 versus 31.6 in the Noometry coding category.

### How many benchmarks do GLM-5.1 and Qwen1.5-7B share?

12 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-5.1 has 41 scored results on Noometry and Qwen1.5-7B has 13.