# GLM-5.1 vs Qwen3.6 Plus

> GLM-5.1 and Qwen3.6 Plus score almost the same on the Noometry Index (47.6 vs 47.3), so choose on price, context window or the category you care about most.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/glm-5-1-vs-qwen3-6-plus
- Last updated: 2026-10-10
- Shared benchmarks: 33

## Summary

- They share 33 benchmarks with published results for both. GLM-5.1 scores higher in 5 categories and Qwen3.6 Plus in 3 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in reasoning, where GLM-5.1 leads 38.2 to 28.5.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is NYT Connections (extended): 77.7% for GLM-5.1 and 60.3% for Qwen3.6 Plus.
- Qwen3.6 Plus is cheaper at $0.50 / $3 per million input/output tokens, against $1.40 / $4.40 for GLM-5.1.
- Qwen3.6 Plus accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 200K.
- GLM-5.1 has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

## Snapshot

| | GLM-5.1 | Qwen3.6 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Z.ai (Zhipu) | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 47.6 | 47.3 |
| Rank | 51 | 54 |
| Context | 200K | 1M |
| Input $/M | $1.40 | $0.50 |
| Output $/M | $4.40 | $3 |
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |

## Coding

- GLM-5.1: 48.5 (#52)
- Qwen3.6 Plus: 40.6 (#125)

| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | Qwen3.6 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench Verified | 74.2% | 57.9% |
| LMArena WebDev | 1509 | 1461 |
| SciCode | 43.8% | 40.7% |
| LMArena Coding | 1486 | 1467 |
| ALE-Bench | 887.1 | 670.15 |
| WeirdML | 57.1% | — |

## Agentic & Tool Use

- GLM-5.1: 24.8 (#106)
- Qwen3.6 Plus: —

| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | Qwen3.6 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| Vending-Bench 2 | 5,634 | 5,115 |
| APEX-Agents | 40.9% | — |
| ExploitBench | 18.1% | — |
| GBAEval | 0% | — |

## Reasoning

- GLM-5.1: 38.2 (#57)
- Qwen3.6 Plus: 28.5 (#89)

| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | Qwen3.6 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| NYT Connections (extended) | 77.7% | 60.3% |
| CritPt | 4.6% | 2.9% |
| Chess Puzzles | 19% | 17% |
| Thematic Generalization | 69.8% | 59.5% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1472 | 1449 |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 149.86 | 147.67 |
| SimpleBench | 55.1% | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | — | 12% |
| DTBench | — | 81.9% |
| LMCA | — | 33.1% |

## Math

- GLM-5.1: 49.0 (#48)
- Qwen3.6 Plus: 50.6 (#44)

| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | Qwen3.6 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 36.8% | 38.2% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 93.3% | 93.3% |
| LMArena Math | 1472 | 1450 |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 33.4% | 26.2% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | 12.5% | 8.3% |
| MathArena Final-Answer Competitions | 67.1% | — |
| ProofBench | 22.2% | — |

## Knowledge

- GLM-5.1: 55.0 (#45)
- Qwen3.6 Plus: 56.1 (#40)

| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | Qwen3.6 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 89.9% | 88.4% |
| SimpleQA Verified | 34% | 44.1% |
| LMArena Expert | 1477 | 1456 |

## Multilingual

- GLM-5.1: 55.2 (#34)
- Qwen3.6 Plus: 53.5 (#66)

| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | Qwen3.6 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1448 | 1424 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1516 | 1478 |
| LMArena French | 1478 | 1454 |
| LMArena German | 1466 | 1451 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1436 | 1389 |
| LMArena Korean | 1423 | 1381 |
| LMArena Russian | 1453 | 1434 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1467 | 1432 |

## Instruction Following

- GLM-5.1: 76.5 (#41)
- Qwen3.6 Plus: 75.2 (#70)

| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | Qwen3.6 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1451 | 1425 |

## Long Context

- GLM-5.1: 44.9 (#51)
- Qwen3.6 Plus: 45.1 (#48)

| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | Qwen3.6 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1467 | 1440 |
| CL-bench | — | 20.3% |

## Writing & Preference

- GLM-5.1: 67.2 (#29)
- Qwen3.6 Plus: 62.4 (#78)

| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | Qwen3.6 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1462 | 1437 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1454 | 1405 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1473 | 1438 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1592 | — |

## FAQ

### Is GLM-5.1 better than Qwen3.6 Plus?

GLM-5.1 and Qwen3.6 Plus score almost the same on the Noometry Index (47.6 vs 47.3), so choose on price, context window or the category you care about most.

### Which is cheaper, GLM-5.1 or Qwen3.6 Plus?

Qwen3.6 Plus is cheaper. It lists at $0.50 per million input tokens and $3 per million output tokens; GLM-5.1 lists at $1.40 and $4.40.

### Is GLM-5.1 or Qwen3.6 Plus better for coding?

GLM-5.1 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 48.5 versus 40.6 in the Noometry coding category.

### Which has the bigger context window?

Qwen3.6 Plus does, with 1M tokens against 200K.

### How many benchmarks do GLM-5.1 and Qwen3.6 Plus share?

33 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-5.1 has 41 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.6 Plus has 37.