# GLM-5.1 vs Qwen2.5-Coder-32B

> GLM-5.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 47.6 to 32.9 on the Noometry Index. Qwen2.5-Coder-32B costs 2.9× less per token, which makes it the better buy when GLM-5.1's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/glm-5-1-vs-qwen2-5-coder-32b
- Last updated: 2026-10-10
- Shared benchmarks: 13

## Summary

- They share 13 benchmarks with published results for both. GLM-5.1 scores higher in 8 categories and Qwen2.5-Coder-32B in 0 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in coding, where GLM-5.1 leads 48.5 to 22.4.
- Qwen2.5-Coder-32B is cheaper at $0.66 / $1 per million input/output tokens, against $1.40 / $4.40 for GLM-5.1.
- GLM-5.1 accepts more context: 200K tokens versus 33K.

## Snapshot

| | GLM-5.1 | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Z.ai (Zhipu) | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 47.6 | 32.9 |
| Rank | 51 | 239 |
| Context | 200K | 33K |
| Input $/M | $1.40 | $0.66 |
| Output $/M | $4.40 | $1 |
| Weights | Open | Open |

## Coding

- GLM-5.1: 48.5 (#52)
- Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 22.4 (#328)

| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1486 | 1276 |
| SWE-bench Verified | 74.2% | — |
| SWE-bench Verified (bash only) | — | 9% |
| Aider Polyglot | — | 16.4% |
| LMArena WebDev | 1509 | — |
| SciCode | 43.8% | — |
| WeirdML | 57.1% | — |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | — | 49% |
| LiveBench Coding | — | 56.9% |
| BigCodeBench Complete | — | 58% |
| ALE-Bench | 887.1 | — |
| HumanEval+ | — | 87.2% |
| MBPP+ | — | 77% |

## Agentic & Tool Use

- GLM-5.1: 24.8 (#106)
- Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: —

| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| APEX-Agents | 40.9% | — |
| ExploitBench | 18.1% | — |
| GBAEval | 0% | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | 5,634 | — |

## Reasoning

- GLM-5.1: 38.2 (#57)
- Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 20.4 (#220)

| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1472 | 1251 |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 149.86 | 119.41 |
| SimpleBench | 55.1% | — |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 77.7% | — |
| CritPt | 4.6% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | 19% | — |
| Thematic Generalization | 69.8% | — |
| LiveBench Reasoning | — | 42.1% |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | — | 49.9% |
| HellaSwag | — | 83% |
| LiveBench | — | 46.2% |
| WinoGrande | — | 80.8% |

## Math

- GLM-5.1: 49.0 (#48)
- Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 30.8 (#203)

| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1472 | 1251 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 36.8% | — |
| MathArena Final-Answer Competitions | 67.1% | — |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 93.3% | — |
| ProofBench | 22.2% | — |
| LiveBench Math | — | 46.6% |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 33.4% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | 12.5% | — |
| GSM8K | — | 93% |

## Knowledge

- GLM-5.1: 55.0 (#45)
- Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 32.9 (#200)

| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1477 | 1221 |
| GPQA Diamond | 89.9% | — |
| SimpleQA Verified | 34% | — |
| ARC (AI2) Challenge | — | 70.5% |
| MMLU | — | 79.1% |

## Multilingual

- GLM-5.1: 55.2 (#34)
- Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 38.0 (#230)

| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1448 | 1205 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1516 | 1222 |
| LMArena Russian | 1453 | 1228 |
| LMArena French | 1478 | — |
| LMArena German | 1466 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1436 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1423 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1467 | — |

## Instruction Following

- GLM-5.1: 76.5 (#41)
- Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 61.6 (#240)

| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1451 | 1223 |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | — | 58.7% |

## Long Context

- GLM-5.1: 44.9 (#51)
- Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 37.9 (#204)

| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1467 | 1251 |

## Writing & Preference

- GLM-5.1: 67.2 (#29)
- Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 41.8 (#235)

| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1462 | 1230 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1454 | 1174 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1473 | 1222 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1592 | — |
| LiveBench Language | — | 23.3% |

## FAQ

### Is GLM-5.1 better than Qwen2.5-Coder-32B?

GLM-5.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 47.6 to 32.9 on the Noometry Index. Qwen2.5-Coder-32B costs 2.9× less per token, which makes it the better buy when GLM-5.1's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

### Which is cheaper, GLM-5.1 or Qwen2.5-Coder-32B?

Qwen2.5-Coder-32B is cheaper. It lists at $0.66 per million input tokens and $1 per million output tokens; GLM-5.1 lists at $1.40 and $4.40.

### Is GLM-5.1 or Qwen2.5-Coder-32B better for coding?

GLM-5.1 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 48.5 versus 22.4 in the Noometry coding category.

### Which has the bigger context window?

GLM-5.1 does, with 200K tokens against 33K.

### How many benchmarks do GLM-5.1 and Qwen2.5-Coder-32B share?

13 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-5.1 has 41 scored results on Noometry and Qwen2.5-Coder-32B has 31.