Model comparison
GLM-5.1 vs QwQ-32B
GLM-5.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 47.6 to 39.4 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 22 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 22 benchmarks with published results for both. GLM-5.1 scores higher in 7 categories and QwQ-32B in 1 category; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in knowledge, where GLM-5.1 leads 55.0 to 37.2.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 93.3% for GLM-5.1 and 59.2% for QwQ-32B.
Side by side
| GLM-5.1 | QwQ-32B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Z.ai (Zhipu) | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 47.6 | 39.4 |
| Released | 2026-04-07 | 2024-11-28 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | 200K | — |
| Max output | 131K | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | $1.40 | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | $4.40 | — |
| Results tracked | 41 | 36 |
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), QwQ-32B: 34.9 (#220)
| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1486 | 1333 |
| SWE-bench Verified | 74.2% | — |
| Aider Polyglot | — | 20.9% |
| LMArena WebDev | 1509 | — |
| SciCode | 43.8% | — |
| WeirdML | 57.1% | — |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | — | 44.6% |
| LiveBench Coding | — | 72.2% |
| BigCodeBench Complete | — | 54.4% |
| ALE-Bench | 887.1 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
GLM-5.1: 24.8 (#106), QwQ-32B: —
| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| APEX-Agents | 40.9% | — |
| ExploitBench | 18.1% | — |
| GBAEval | 0% | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | 5,634 | — |
Reasoning GLM-5.1 leads
GLM-5.1: 38.2 (#57), QwQ-32B: 22.9 (#171)
| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| Chess Puzzles | 19% | 5% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1472 | 1326 |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 149.86 | 137.6 |
| SimpleBench | 55.1% | — |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 77.7% | — |
| CritPt | 4.6% | — |
| Thematic Generalization | 69.8% | — |
| LiveBench Reasoning | — | 83.5% |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | — | 65% |
| ForecastBench | — | 58.3 |
| LiveBench | — | 72% |
Math GLM-5.1 leads
GLM-5.1: 49.0 (#48), QwQ-32B: 36.2 (#123)
| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 93.3% | 59.2% |
| LMArena Math | 1472 | 1359 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 36.8% | — |
| MathArena Final-Answer Competitions | 67.1% | — |
| ProofBench | 22.2% | — |
| LiveBench Math | — | 77.8% |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 33.4% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | 12.5% | — |
Knowledge GLM-5.1 leads
GLM-5.1: 55.0 (#45), QwQ-32B: 37.2 (#150)
| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 89.9% | 65.3% |
| LMArena Expert | 1477 | 1323 |
| SimpleQA Verified | 34% | — |
| Confabulations | — | 15.6% |
Multilingual GLM-5.1 leads
GLM-5.1: 55.2 (#34), QwQ-32B: 45.0 (#171)
| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1448 | 1306 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1516 | 1378 |
| LMArena French | 1478 | 1337 |
| LMArena German | 1466 | 1313 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1436 | 1263 |
| LMArena Korean | 1423 | 1278 |
| LMArena Russian | 1453 | 1297 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1467 | 1353 |
Instruction Following GLM-5.1 leads
GLM-5.1: 76.5 (#41), QwQ-32B: 72.8 (#131)
| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1451 | 1297 |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | — | 81.8% |
Long Context QwQ-32B leads
GLM-5.1: 44.9 (#51), QwQ-32B: 49.0 (#11)
| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1467 | 1308 |
| Fiction.LiveBench | — | 83.3% |
Writing & Preference GLM-5.1 leads
GLM-5.1: 67.2 (#29), QwQ-32B: 50.9 (#175)
| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1462 | 1329 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1454 | 1288 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1592 | 1257 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1473 | 1314 |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | — | 80.2% |
| LiveBench Language | — | 51.4% |
Frequently asked questions
Is GLM-5.1 better than QwQ-32B?
GLM-5.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 47.6 to 39.4 on the Noometry Index.
Is GLM-5.1 or QwQ-32B better for coding?
GLM-5.1 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 48.5 versus 34.9 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do GLM-5.1 and QwQ-32B share?
22 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-5.1 has 41 scored results on Noometry and QwQ-32B has 36.