Model comparison
GLM-5.1 vs Qwen Plus
GLM-5.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 47.8 to 37.1 on the Noometry Index. Qwen Plus costs 3.6× less per token, which makes it the better buy when GLM-5.1's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 16 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 16 benchmarks with published results for both. GLM-5.1 scores higher in 8 categories and Qwen Plus in 0 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in knowledge, where GLM-5.1 leads 54.9 to 27.4.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 93.3% for GLM-5.1 and 17.8% for Qwen Plus.
- Qwen Plus is cheaper at $0.40 / $1.20 per million input/output tokens, against $1.40 / $4.40 for GLM-5.1.
- Qwen Plus accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 200K.
- GLM-5.1 has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| GLM-5.1 | Qwen Plus | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Z.ai (Zhipu) | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 47.8 | 37.1 |
| Released | 2026-04-07 | 2024-01-25 |
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |
| Context window | 200K | 1M |
| Max output | 131K | 33K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $1.40 | $0.40 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $4.40 | $1.20 |
| Results tracked | 41 | 20 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding GLM-5.1 leads
GLM-5.1: 48.7 (#55), Qwen Plus: 38.9 (#167)
| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | Qwen Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1485 | 1328 |
| SWE-bench Verified | 74.2% | — |
| LMArena WebDev | 1508 | — |
| SciCode | 43.8% | — |
| WeirdML | 57.1% | — |
| ALE-Bench | 887.1 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
GLM-5.1: 24.9 (#113), Qwen Plus: —
| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | Qwen Plus |
|---|---|---|
| APEX-Agents | 40.9% | — |
| ExploitBench | 18.1% | — |
| GBAEval | 0% | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | 5,634 | — |
Reasoning GLM-5.1 leads
GLM-5.1: 39.1 (#60), Qwen Plus: 28.4 (#107)
| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | Qwen Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1472 | 1317 |
| SimpleBench | 55.1% | — |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | — | 63.3% |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 77.7% | — |
| CritPt | 4.6% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | 19% | — |
| Thematic Generalization | 69.8% | — |
| DTBench | — | 81.1% |
| LMCA | — | 24% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 149.84 | — |
Math GLM-5.1 leads
GLM-5.1: 49.7 (#60), Qwen Plus: 23.3 (#271)
| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | Qwen Plus |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 93.3% | 17.8% |
| LMArena Math | 1473 | 1326 |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 33.4% | 1.7% |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 36.8% | — |
| MathArena Final-Answer Competitions | 67.1% | — |
| ProofBench | 22.2% | — |
| MATH Level 5 | — | 65.3% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | 12.5% | — |
Knowledge GLM-5.1 leads
GLM-5.1: 54.9 (#50), Qwen Plus: 27.4 (#251)
| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | Qwen Plus |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 89.9% | 48.1% |
| LMArena Expert | 1476 | 1328 |
| SimpleQA Verified | 34% | — |
Multilingual GLM-5.1 leads
GLM-5.1: 55.0 (#36), Qwen Plus: 45.1 (#175)
| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | Qwen Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1447 | 1310 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1515 | 1347 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1434 | 1251 |
| LMArena Russian | 1454 | 1323 |
| LMArena French | 1474 | — |
| LMArena German | 1465 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1418 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1469 | — |
Instruction Following GLM-5.1 leads
GLM-5.1: 76.3 (#42), Qwen Plus: 68.8 (#181)
| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | Qwen Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1451 | 1303 |
Long Context GLM-5.1 leads
GLM-5.1: 44.9 (#53), Qwen Plus: 40.3 (#158)
| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | Qwen Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1466 | 1324 |
Writing & Preference GLM-5.1 leads
GLM-5.1: 66.9 (#31), Qwen Plus: 52.2 (#176)
| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | Qwen Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1461 | 1326 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1453 | 1293 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1472 | 1336 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1592 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is GLM-5.1 better than Qwen Plus?
GLM-5.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 47.8 to 37.1 on the Noometry Index. Qwen Plus costs 3.6× 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 Qwen Plus?
Qwen Plus is cheaper. It lists at $0.40 per million input tokens and $1.20 per million output tokens; GLM-5.1 lists at $1.40 and $4.40.
Is GLM-5.1 or Qwen Plus better for coding?
GLM-5.1 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 48.7 versus 38.9 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Qwen Plus does, with 1M tokens against 200K.
How many benchmarks do GLM-5.1 and Qwen Plus share?
16 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-5.1 has 41 scored results on Noometry and Qwen Plus has 20.