Noometry

Model comparison

GLM-5.1 vs Qwen3 Max

GLM-5.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 47.6 to 43.5 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 26 shared benchmarks.

GLM-5.1 Z.ai (Zhipu)

47.6

Rank #51 Confirmed

Qwen3 Max Alibaba (Qwen)

43.5

Rank #82 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 26 benchmarks with published results for both. GLM-5.1 scores higher in 8 categories and Qwen3 Max in 0 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in reasoning, where GLM-5.1 leads 38.2 to 22.0.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is NYT Connections (extended): 77.7% for GLM-5.1 and 30.1% for Qwen3 Max.
  • GLM-5.1 is cheaper at $1.40 / $4.40 per million input/output tokens, against $1.20 / $6 for Qwen3 Max.
  • Qwen3 Max accepts more context: 262K tokens versus 200K.
  • GLM-5.1 has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

GLM-5.1Qwen3 Max
ProviderZ.ai (Zhipu)Alibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index47.643.5
Released2026-04-072025-09-23
WeightsOpenProprietary
Context window200K262K
Max output131K66K
Input $ / M tokens$1.40$1.20
Output $ / M tokens$4.40$6
Results tracked4133

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

Category by category

Coding GLM-5.1 leads

GLM-5.1: 48.5 (#52), Qwen3 Max: 42.4 (#93)

BenchmarkGLM-5.1Qwen3 Max
LMArena Coding14861456
ALE-Bench887.1370.45
SWE-bench Verified74.2%—
LMArena WebDev1509—
SciCode43.8%—
WeirdML57.1%—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

GLM-5.1: 24.8 (#106), Qwen3 Max: —

BenchmarkGLM-5.1Qwen3 Max
Vending-Bench 25,63471.56
APEX-Agents40.9%—
ExploitBench18.1%—
GBAEval0%—

Reasoning GLM-5.1 leads

GLM-5.1: 38.2 (#57), Qwen3 Max: 22.0 (#186)

BenchmarkGLM-5.1Qwen3 Max
NYT Connections (extended)77.7%30.1%
Chess Puzzles19%4%
LMArena Hard Prompts14721448
Epoch Capabilities Index149.86142.41
SimpleBench55.1%—
Kagi LLM Benchmark—72.5%
CritPt4.6%—
Thematic Generalization69.8%—
Mystery Game Puzzles—5%
DTBench—82.1%
LMCA—28.3%

Math GLM-5.1 leads

GLM-5.1: 49.0 (#48), Qwen3 Max: 37.6 (#94)

BenchmarkGLM-5.1Qwen3 Max
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)36.8%18.9%
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202593.3%73.3%
LMArena Math14721447
MathArena Final-Answer Competitions67.1%—
ProofBench22.2%—
MATH Level 5—97.1%
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)33.4%—
FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1)12.5%—

Knowledge GLM-5.1 leads

GLM-5.1: 55.0 (#45), Qwen3 Max: 48.1 (#72)

BenchmarkGLM-5.1Qwen3 Max
GPQA Diamond89.9%72.6%
SimpleQA Verified34%48.7%
LMArena Expert14771457

Multilingual GLM-5.1 leads

GLM-5.1: 55.2 (#34), Qwen3 Max: 53.9 (#58)

BenchmarkGLM-5.1Qwen3 Max
LMArena Non-English14481429
LMArena Chinese15161479
LMArena French14781450
LMArena German14661463
LMArena Japanese14361399
LMArena Korean14231397
LMArena Russian14531428
LMArena Spanish14671463

Instruction Following GLM-5.1 leads

GLM-5.1: 76.5 (#41), Qwen3 Max: 75.0 (#81)

BenchmarkGLM-5.1Qwen3 Max
LMArena Instruction Following14511420

Long Context GLM-5.1 leads

GLM-5.1: 44.9 (#51), Qwen3 Max: 41.6 (#129)

BenchmarkGLM-5.1Qwen3 Max
LMArena Longer Query14671439
Fiction.LiveBench—66.7%
CL-bench—14.5%

Writing & Preference GLM-5.1 leads

GLM-5.1: 67.2 (#29), Qwen3 Max: 62.6 (#72)

BenchmarkGLM-5.1Qwen3 Max
LMArena Text14621439
LMArena Creative Writing14541401
LMArena Multi-Turn14731446
EQ-Bench Creative Writing1592—

Frequently asked questions

Is GLM-5.1 better than Qwen3 Max?

GLM-5.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 47.6 to 43.5 on the Noometry Index.

Which is cheaper, GLM-5.1 or Qwen3 Max?

GLM-5.1 is cheaper. It lists at $1.40 per million input tokens and $4.40 per million output tokens; Qwen3 Max lists at $1.20 and $6.

Is GLM-5.1 or Qwen3 Max better for coding?

GLM-5.1 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 48.5 versus 42.4 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Qwen3 Max does, with 262K tokens against 200K.

How many benchmarks do GLM-5.1 and Qwen3 Max share?

26 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-5.1 has 41 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3 Max has 33.

Related comparisons

Go deeper