Model comparison
GLM-5.3 vs QwQ-32B
GLM-5.3 is the stronger model overall, scoring 54.8 to 39.8 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 22 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 22 benchmarks with published results for both. GLM-5.3 scores higher in 7 categories and QwQ-32B in 1 category; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in writing & preference, where GLM-5.3 leads 75.7 to 50.6.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 91.1% for GLM-5.3 and 59.2% for QwQ-32B.
Side by side
| GLM-5.3 | QwQ-32B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Z.ai (Zhipu) | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 54.8 | 39.8 |
| Released | 2026-08-14 | 2024-11-28 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | 1M | — |
| Max output | 131K | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | $1.40 | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | $4.40 | — |
| Results tracked | 42 | 36 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding GLM-5.3 leads
GLM-5.3: 59.5 (#14), QwQ-32B: 35.4 (#226)
| Benchmark | GLM-5.3 | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1496 | 1333 |
| DeepSWE | 69% | — |
| FrontierCode | 40.1% | — |
| Aider Polyglot | — | 20.9% |
| CursorBench | 42.6% | — |
| LMArena WebDev | 1622 | — |
| FrontierSWE | 30.2% | — |
| SciCode | 59% | — |
| WeirdML | 75.4% | — |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | — | 44.6% |
| LiveBench Coding | — | 72.2% |
| BigCodeBench Complete | — | 54.4% |
| ALE-Bench | 1,317 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
GLM-5.3: 36.4 (#38), QwQ-32B: —
| Benchmark | GLM-5.3 | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| APEX-Agents | 56.6% | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | 8,164 | — |
Reasoning GLM-5.3 leads
GLM-5.3: 46.1 (#46), QwQ-32B: 23.7 (#174)
| Benchmark | GLM-5.3 | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| Chess Puzzles | 21% | 5% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1489 | 1325 |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 155.61 | 137.6 |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 74.2% | — |
| CritPt | 19.1% | — |
| LiveBench Reasoning | — | 83.5% |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 33% | — |
| DTBench | 87.7% | — |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | — | 65% |
| LMCA | 55.5% | — |
| Bench to the Future 3 | 0.15 | — |
| ForecastBench | — | 58.3 |
| LiveBench | — | 72% |
Math GLM-5.3 leads
GLM-5.3: 62.3 (#33), QwQ-32B: 38.0 (#143)
| Benchmark | GLM-5.3 | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 91.1% | 59.2% |
| LMArena Math | 1489 | 1359 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 68.8% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 29.3% | — |
| ProofBench | 49% | — |
| LiveBench Math | — | 77.8% |
Knowledge GLM-5.3 leads
GLM-5.3: 58.3 (#37), QwQ-32B: 37.2 (#158)
| Benchmark | GLM-5.3 | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 90.9% | 65.3% |
| LMArena Expert | 1516 | 1324 |
| SimpleQA Verified | 41% | — |
| Confabulations | — | 15.6% |
Multilingual GLM-5.3 leads
GLM-5.3: 55.7 (#28), QwQ-32B: 44.8 (#176)
| Benchmark | GLM-5.3 | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1457 | 1305 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1528 | 1378 |
| LMArena French | 1499 | 1336 |
| LMArena German | 1499 | 1313 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1453 | 1262 |
| LMArena Korean | 1472 | 1279 |
| LMArena Russian | 1463 | 1297 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1460 | 1354 |
Instruction Following GLM-5.3 leads
GLM-5.3: 77.5 (#23), QwQ-32B: 72.6 (#137)
| Benchmark | GLM-5.3 | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1477 | 1297 |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | — | 81.8% |
Long Context QwQ-32B leads
GLM-5.3: 45.4 (#41), QwQ-32B: 49.0 (#11)
| Benchmark | GLM-5.3 | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1482 | 1308 |
| Fiction.LiveBench | — | 83.3% |
Writing & Preference GLM-5.3 leads
GLM-5.3: 75.7 (#6), QwQ-32B: 50.6 (#180)
| Benchmark | GLM-5.3 | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1471 | 1329 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1457 | 1288 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 2075 | 1257 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1472 | 1314 |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | — | 80.2% |
| LiveBench Language | — | 51.4% |
Frequently asked questions
Is GLM-5.3 better than QwQ-32B?
GLM-5.3 is the stronger model overall, scoring 54.8 to 39.8 on the Noometry Index.
Is GLM-5.3 or QwQ-32B better for coding?
GLM-5.3 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 59.5 versus 35.4 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do GLM-5.3 and QwQ-32B share?
22 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-5.3 has 42 scored results on Noometry and QwQ-32B has 36.