Model comparison
GLM-5.1 vs Qwen3.6 Plus
GLM-5.1 and Qwen3.6 Plus score almost the same on the Noometry Index (47.8 vs 47.5), so choose on price, context window or the category you care about most.
Last verified . 33 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)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 39.1 to 29.3.
- 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.
Side by side
| GLM-5.1 | Qwen3.6 Plus | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Z.ai (Zhipu) | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 47.8 | 47.5 |
| Released | 2026-04-07 | 2026-03-31 |
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |
| Context window | 200K | 1M |
| Max output | 131K | 66K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $1.40 | $0.50 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $4.40 | $3 |
| Results tracked | 41 | 37 |
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), Qwen3.6 Plus: 40.8 (#130)
| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | Qwen3.6 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench Verified | 74.2% | 57.9% |
| LMArena WebDev | 1508 | 1461 |
| SciCode | 43.8% | 40.7% |
| LMArena Coding | 1485 | 1467 |
| ALE-Bench | 887.1 | 670.15 |
| WeirdML | 57.1% | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
GLM-5.1: 24.9 (#113), 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 leads
GLM-5.1: 39.1 (#60), Qwen3.6 Plus: 29.3 (#93)
| 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 | 149.84 | 147.65 |
| SimpleBench | 55.1% | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | — | 12% |
| DTBench | — | 81.9% |
| LMCA | — | 33.1% |
Math Qwen3.6 Plus leads
GLM-5.1: 49.7 (#60), Qwen3.6 Plus: 51.8 (#54)
| 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 | 1473 | 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 Qwen3.6 Plus leads
GLM-5.1: 54.9 (#50), Qwen3.6 Plus: 56.1 (#45)
| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | Qwen3.6 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 89.9% | 88.4% |
| SimpleQA Verified | 34% | 44.1% |
| LMArena Expert | 1476 | 1454 |
Multilingual GLM-5.1 leads
GLM-5.1: 55.0 (#36), Qwen3.6 Plus: 53.3 (#70)
| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | Qwen3.6 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1447 | 1424 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1515 | 1477 |
| LMArena French | 1474 | 1455 |
| LMArena German | 1465 | 1452 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1434 | 1389 |
| LMArena Korean | 1418 | 1379 |
| LMArena Russian | 1454 | 1434 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1469 | 1432 |
Instruction Following GLM-5.1 leads
GLM-5.1: 76.3 (#42), Qwen3.6 Plus: 75.0 (#74)
| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | Qwen3.6 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1451 | 1425 |
Long Context Too close to call
GLM-5.1: 44.9 (#53), Qwen3.6 Plus: 45.2 (#49)
| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | Qwen3.6 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1466 | 1439 |
| CL-bench | — | 20.3% |
Writing & Preference GLM-5.1 leads
GLM-5.1: 66.9 (#31), Qwen3.6 Plus: 62.2 (#82)
| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | Qwen3.6 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1461 | 1437 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1453 | 1404 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1472 | 1438 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1592 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is GLM-5.1 better than Qwen3.6 Plus?
GLM-5.1 and Qwen3.6 Plus score almost the same on the Noometry Index (47.8 vs 47.5), 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: 48.7 versus 40.8 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.