# GLM-5.1 vs Qwen2.5-Max

> GLM-5.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 47.6 to 40.1 on the Noometry Index.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/glm-5-1-vs-qwen2-5-max
- Last updated: 2026-10-10
- Shared benchmarks: 18

## Summary

- They share 18 benchmarks with published results for both. GLM-5.1 scores higher in 8 categories and Qwen2.5-Max in 0 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in knowledge, where GLM-5.1 leads 55.0 to 34.8.
- GLM-5.1 has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

## Snapshot

| | GLM-5.1 | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Z.ai (Zhipu) | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 47.6 | 40.1 |
| Rank | 51 | 142 |
| Context | 200K | — |
| Input $/M | $1.40 | — |
| Output $/M | $4.40 | — |
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |

## Coding

- GLM-5.1: 48.5 (#52)
- Qwen2.5-Max: 41.2 (#118)

| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1486 | 1359 |
| SWE-bench Verified | 74.2% | — |
| LMArena WebDev | 1509 | — |
| SciCode | 43.8% | — |
| WeirdML | 57.1% | — |
| LiveBench Coding | — | 64.4% |
| ALE-Bench | 887.1 | — |

## Agentic & Tool Use

- GLM-5.1: 24.8 (#106)
- Qwen2.5-Max: —

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

## Reasoning

- GLM-5.1: 38.2 (#57)
- Qwen2.5-Max: 24.6 (#144)

| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1472 | 1360 |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 149.86 | 132.54 |
| SimpleBench | 55.1% | — |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 77.7% | — |
| CritPt | 4.6% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | 19% | — |
| Thematic Generalization | 69.8% | — |
| LiveBench Reasoning | — | 51.4% |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | — | 67.9% |
| LiveBench | — | 62.3% |

## Math

- GLM-5.1: 49.0 (#48)
- Qwen2.5-Max: 34.3 (#162)

| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1472 | 1369 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 36.8% | — |
| MathArena Final-Answer Competitions | 67.1% | — |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 93.3% | — |
| ProofBench | 22.2% | — |
| LiveBench Math | — | 58.4% |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 33.4% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | 12.5% | — |

## Knowledge

- GLM-5.1: 55.0 (#45)
- Qwen2.5-Max: 34.8 (#181)

| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1477 | 1337 |
| GPQA Diamond | 89.9% | — |
| SimpleQA Verified | 34% | — |
| Confabulations | — | 21.8% |

## Multilingual

- GLM-5.1: 55.2 (#34)
- Qwen2.5-Max: 48.3 (#140)

| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1448 | 1352 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1516 | 1382 |
| LMArena French | 1478 | 1396 |
| LMArena German | 1466 | 1350 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1436 | 1299 |
| LMArena Korean | 1423 | 1304 |
| LMArena Russian | 1453 | 1353 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1467 | 1377 |

## Instruction Following

- GLM-5.1: 76.5 (#41)
- Qwen2.5-Max: 71.5 (#147)

| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1451 | 1335 |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | — | 75.3% |

## Long Context

- GLM-5.1: 44.9 (#51)
- Qwen2.5-Max: 41.3 (#137)

| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1467 | 1358 |

## Writing & Preference

- GLM-5.1: 67.2 (#29)
- Qwen2.5-Max: 55.6 (#141)

| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1462 | 1367 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1454 | 1339 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1473 | 1364 |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | — | 72.9% |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1592 | — |
| LiveBench Language | — | 56.3% |

## FAQ

### Is GLM-5.1 better than Qwen2.5-Max?

GLM-5.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 47.6 to 40.1 on the Noometry Index.

### Is GLM-5.1 or Qwen2.5-Max better for coding?

GLM-5.1 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 48.5 versus 41.2 in the Noometry coding category.

### How many benchmarks do GLM-5.1 and Qwen2.5-Max share?

18 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-5.1 has 41 scored results on Noometry and Qwen2.5-Max has 27.