# GLM-5.2 vs Qwen3.6 Max Preview

> GLM-5.2 and Qwen3.6 Max Preview score almost the same on the Noometry Index (50.9 vs 51.1), so choose on price, context window or the category you care about most.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/glm-5-2-vs-qwen3-6-max-preview
- Last updated: 2026-10-10
- Shared benchmarks: 27

## Summary

- They share 27 benchmarks with published results for both. GLM-5.2 scores higher in 7 categories and Qwen3.6 Max Preview in 1 category; 6 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in writing & preference, where GLM-5.2 leads 70.7 to 64.0.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is SimpleQA Verified: 34.2% for GLM-5.2 and 52% for Qwen3.6 Max Preview.
- GLM-5.2 is cheaper at $1.40 / $4.40 per million input/output tokens, against $1.30 / $7.80 for Qwen3.6 Max Preview.
- GLM-5.2 accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 262K.
- GLM-5.2 has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

## Snapshot

| | GLM-5.2 | Qwen3.6 Max Preview |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Z.ai (Zhipu) | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 50.9 | 51.1 |
| Rank | 38 | 36 |
| Context | 1M | 262K |
| Input $/M | $1.40 | $1.30 |
| Output $/M | $4.40 | $7.80 |
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |

## Coding

- GLM-5.2: 50.9 (#37)
- Qwen3.6 Max Preview: 48.6 (#50)

| Benchmark | GLM-5.2 | Qwen3.6 Max Preview |
|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench Verified | 78.7% | 76.7% |
| LMArena WebDev | 1604 | 1482 |
| LMArena Coding | 1484 | 1472 |
| DeepSWE | 43.8% | — |
| FrontierCode | 24.5% | — |
| SciCode | 50.5% | — |
| WeirdML | 70.1% | — |
| ALE-Bench | 1,047 | — |

## Agentic & Tool Use

- GLM-5.2: 31.6 (#63)
- Qwen3.6 Max Preview: —

| Benchmark | GLM-5.2 | Qwen3.6 Max Preview |
|---|---|---|
| Vending-Bench 2 | 8,314 | 4,254 |
| τ²-bench Banking | 37.1% | — |
| PostTrainBench | 31.7% | — |
| GBAEval | 0% | — |

## Reasoning

- GLM-5.2: 42.1 (#46)
- Qwen3.6 Max Preview: 40.8 (#47)

| Benchmark | GLM-5.2 | Qwen3.6 Max Preview |
|---|---|---|
| SimpleBench | 58.8% | 63% |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 74.3% | 74.1% |
| Chess Puzzles | 21% | 20% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1480 | 1457 |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 19% | 19% |
| DTBench | 93.6% | 87.2% |
| LMCA | 45.8% | 42.5% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 151.76 | 149.27 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 22.8% | — |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 62.6% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 77% | — |
| CritPt | 20.9% | — |
| EBR-Bench | 9.5% | — |
| Surface Evolver Bench | 55.6% | — |

## Math

- GLM-5.2: 55.4 (#35)
- Qwen3.6 Max Preview: 52.2 (#40)

| Benchmark | GLM-5.2 | Qwen3.6 Max Preview |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 86.4% | 91.1% |
| LMArena Math | 1482 | 1465 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 59.2% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 29.3% | — |
| MathArena Final-Answer Competitions | 67.6% | — |
| ProofBench | 35% | — |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | — | 23.1% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | — | 4.2% |

## Knowledge

- GLM-5.2: 57.1 (#36)
- Qwen3.6 Max Preview: 57.6 (#35)

| Benchmark | GLM-5.2 | Qwen3.6 Max Preview |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 91.9% | 87.4% |
| SimpleQA Verified | 34.2% | 52% |
| LMArena Expert | 1484 | 1476 |

## Multilingual

- GLM-5.2: 56.0 (#25)
- Qwen3.6 Max Preview: 54.3 (#46)

| Benchmark | GLM-5.2 | Qwen3.6 Max Preview |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1459 | 1436 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1518 | 1487 |
| LMArena French | 1476 | 1449 |
| LMArena Russian | 1467 | 1444 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1477 | 1452 |
| LMArena German | 1470 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1451 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1445 | — |

## Instruction Following

- GLM-5.2: 77.1 (#32)
- Qwen3.6 Max Preview: 75.8 (#51)

| Benchmark | GLM-5.2 | Qwen3.6 Max Preview |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1465 | 1437 |

## Long Context

- GLM-5.2: 45.3 (#43)
- Qwen3.6 Max Preview: 44.6 (#59)

| Benchmark | GLM-5.2 | Qwen3.6 Max Preview |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1479 | 1457 |

## Writing & Preference

- GLM-5.2: 70.7 (#20)
- Qwen3.6 Max Preview: 64.0 (#58)

| Benchmark | GLM-5.2 | Qwen3.6 Max Preview |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1470 | 1447 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1465 | 1435 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1468 | 1456 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1757 | — |
| EQ-Bench 4 | 1222 | — |

## FAQ

### Is GLM-5.2 better than Qwen3.6 Max Preview?

GLM-5.2 and Qwen3.6 Max Preview score almost the same on the Noometry Index (50.9 vs 51.1), so choose on price, context window or the category you care about most.

### Which is cheaper, GLM-5.2 or Qwen3.6 Max Preview?

GLM-5.2 is cheaper. It lists at $1.40 per million input tokens and $4.40 per million output tokens; Qwen3.6 Max Preview lists at $1.30 and $7.80.

### Is GLM-5.2 or Qwen3.6 Max Preview better for coding?

GLM-5.2 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 50.9 versus 48.6 in the Noometry coding category.

### Which has the bigger context window?

GLM-5.2 does, with 1M tokens against 262K.

### How many benchmarks do GLM-5.2 and Qwen3.6 Max Preview share?

27 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-5.2 has 50 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.6 Max Preview has 29.