Noometry

Model comparison

GLM-4.5 vs Qwen Plus

GLM-4.5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.4 to 36.7 on the Noometry Index. Qwen Plus costs 1.7× less per token, which makes it the better buy when GLM-4.5's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Last verified . 14 shared benchmarks.

GLM-4.5 Z.ai (Zhipu)

41.4

Rank #125 Confirmed

Qwen Plus Alibaba (Qwen)

36.7

Rank #204 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 14 benchmarks with published results for both. GLM-4.5 scores higher in 7 categories and Qwen Plus in 1 category; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in math, where GLM-4.5 leads 36.3 to 22.0.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is Kagi LLM Benchmark: 57.9% for GLM-4.5 and 63.3% for Qwen Plus.
  • Qwen Plus is cheaper at $0.40 / $1.20 per million input/output tokens, against $0.60 / $2.20 for GLM-4.5.
  • Qwen Plus accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 131K.
  • GLM-4.5 has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

GLM-4.5Qwen Plus
ProviderZ.ai (Zhipu)Alibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index41.436.7
Released2025-07-272024-01-25
WeightsOpenProprietary
Context window131K1M
Max output98K33K
Input $ / M tokens$0.60$0.40
Output $ / M tokens$2.20$1.20
Results tracked2720

Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry

Category by category

Coding GLM-4.5 leads

GLM-4.5: 41.1 (#121), Qwen Plus: 38.3 (#163)

BenchmarkGLM-4.5Qwen Plus
LMArena Coding14341328
SWE-bench Verified (bash only)54.2%—
WeirdML40.6%—
ALE-Bench344.82—
AlgoTune1.52—

Reasoning Too close to call

GLM-4.5: 27.7 (#99), Qwen Plus: 27.6 (#101)

BenchmarkGLM-4.5Qwen Plus
Kagi LLM Benchmark57.9%63.3%
LMArena Hard Prompts14301317
DTBench—81.1%
LMCA—24%

Math GLM-4.5 leads

GLM-4.5: 36.3 (#119), Qwen Plus: 22.0 (#266)

BenchmarkGLM-4.5Qwen Plus
LMArena Math14271326
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025—17.8%
MATH Level 5—65.3%
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)—1.7%

Knowledge GLM-4.5 leads

GLM-4.5: 35.5 (#172), Qwen Plus: 27.4 (#245)

BenchmarkGLM-4.5Qwen Plus
LMArena Expert14331328
GPQA Diamond—48.1%
Humanity's Last Exam8.3%—
Confabulations11.3%—

Multilingual GLM-4.5 leads

GLM-4.5: 53.0 (#74), Qwen Plus: 45.3 (#170)

BenchmarkGLM-4.5Qwen Plus
LMArena Non-English14171310
LMArena Chinese14651347
LMArena Japanese14161251
LMArena Russian14141323
LMArena French1423—
LMArena German1406—
LMArena Korean1382—
LMArena Spanish1454—

Instruction Following GLM-4.5 leads

GLM-4.5: 74.3 (#100), Qwen Plus: 69.0 (#176)

BenchmarkGLM-4.5Qwen Plus
LMArena Instruction Following14051303

Long Context Qwen Plus leads

GLM-4.5: 38.2 (#196), Qwen Plus: 40.3 (#153)

BenchmarkGLM-4.5Qwen Plus
LMArena Longer Query14131325
Fiction.LiveBench58.3%—

Writing & Preference GLM-4.5 leads

GLM-4.5: 57.7 (#121), Qwen Plus: 52.4 (#171)

BenchmarkGLM-4.5Qwen Plus
LMArena Text14301326
LMArena Creative Writing13951293
LMArena Multi-Turn14151336
Short-Story Creative Writing73.4%—
EQ-Bench Creative Writing1343—

Frequently asked questions

Is GLM-4.5 better than Qwen Plus?

GLM-4.5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.4 to 36.7 on the Noometry Index. Qwen Plus costs 1.7× less per token, which makes it the better buy when GLM-4.5's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Which is cheaper, GLM-4.5 or Qwen Plus?

Qwen Plus is cheaper. It lists at $0.40 per million input tokens and $1.20 per million output tokens; GLM-4.5 lists at $0.60 and $2.20.

Is GLM-4.5 or Qwen Plus better for coding?

GLM-4.5 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 41.1 versus 38.3 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Qwen Plus does, with 1M tokens against 131K.

How many benchmarks do GLM-4.5 and Qwen Plus share?

14 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-4.5 has 27 scored results on Noometry and Qwen Plus has 20.

Related comparisons

Go deeper