Skip to main content
BenchLM
Advertise

Model comparison

GLM-4.5 vs Qwen3.8 Max

Updated August 3, 2026. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. They are not guarantees for a specific workload.

GLM-4.5

Z.AI

—

Evidence status unavailable

90% interval unavailable

Qwen3.8 Max

Alibaba

65.4/100

Estimated · Public rank #31

90% interval 55.5–75.3

The public evidence has no benchmark result shared by both models, so it does not support a quality verdict. Use the documented cost, context, and runtime rows instead.

0 results are shared. Category rows based on different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.

Which one for your work

Recommendations appear only when a shared evidence basis or an explicit operating constraint supports the call. Secondary and unsupported use cases stay disclosed below the initial list.

  • Long documents

    Prompts that approach the documented context limit

    Qwen3.8 Max

    Qwen3.8 Max has the larger documented context window.

    Confidence: documented

Show secondary and unsupported calls

  • Coding work

    Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks

    Not enough matched evidence

    No shared weighted benchmark basis supports a winner.

    Confidence: limited

  • Agentic work

    Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion

    Not enough matched evidence

    No shared weighted benchmark basis supports a winner.

    Confidence: limited

  • Chat turn cost

    1K fresh input + 500 output tokens

    Not enough matched evidence

    A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.

    Confidence: listed-rates

  • Cache-heavy agent loop cost

    200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens

    Not enough matched evidence

    The page does not recommend a cost winner because at least one model cannot fit the stated workload in one request. GLM-4.5 does not fit this workload in one request. GLM-4.5 has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate. Qwen3.8 Max has no comparable published API token rate.

    Confidence: rate-fallback

  • Repository review cost

    50K fresh input + 3K output tokens

    Not enough matched evidence

    A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.

    Confidence: listed-rates

What is actually comparable

Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results present for only one model describe coverage, not superiority.

Shared results
0
GLM-4.5 only
0
Qwen3.8 Max only
52
Like-for-like categories
0 / 8

Category results, on a stated basis

Each row states whether both averages use the same weighted benchmark set. Directional and not-comparable rows remain visible, but they never receive a winner in this template.

Agentic

Not comparable
GLM-4.5
Not measured
Qwen3.8 Max
86.1
Weighted basis
0 vs 1 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Coding

Not comparable
GLM-4.5
Not measured
Qwen3.8 Max
67.7
Weighted basis
0 vs 1 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Reasoning

Not comparable
GLM-4.5
Not measured
Qwen3.8 Max
78.3
Weighted basis
0 vs 2 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Knowledge

Not comparable
GLM-4.5
Not measured
Qwen3.8 Max
50.2
Weighted basis
0 vs 2 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Math

Not comparable
GLM-4.5
Not measured
Qwen3.8 Max
Not measured
Weighted basis
0 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multilingual

Not comparable
GLM-4.5
Not measured
Qwen3.8 Max
Not measured
Weighted basis
0 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multimodal

Not comparable
GLM-4.5
Not measured
Qwen3.8 Max
86.3
Weighted basis
0 vs 2 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Instruction following

Not comparable
GLM-4.5
Not measured
Qwen3.8 Max
82.8
Weighted basis
0 vs 1 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Shape of the matched evidence

Only shared public evidence is shown. Sparse evidence stays a ruled list rather than being closed into a radar shape.

A shared-evidence shape is not available.

BenchLM does not draw a radar or infer missing axes when the matched evidence is too sparse.

What each workload costs

Three fixed token mixes turn per-token rates into comparable decisions. Each scenario states context fit and whether cached input had to fall back to the published list-input rate.

Chat turn

1K fresh input + 500 output tokens

GLM-4.5
$0.0017
Fits in one request
Qwen3.8 Max
API rate not published
Fits in one request

Qwen3.8 Max has no comparable published API token rate.

Repository review

50K fresh input + 3K output tokens

GLM-4.5
$0.0366
Fits in one request
Qwen3.8 Max
API rate not published
Fits in one request

Qwen3.8 Max has no comparable published API token rate.

Cache-heavy agent loop

200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens

GLM-4.5
$0.154
Does not fit in one request
Cached input priced at the published list-input rate
Qwen3.8 Max
API rate not published
Fits in one request
Cached-input rate unavailable

GLM-4.5 does not fit this workload in one request. GLM-4.5 has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate. Qwen3.8 Max has no comparable published API token rate.

Specification differences

Sourced differences are shown directly. Missing facts stay explicit instead of being inferred from a model name or family.

Cached-input rate

A missing cached-input rate falls back to the listed input rate only in the stated workload estimate.

GLM-4.5

Not published

Qwen3.8 Max

No comparable hosted API rate

Alibaba Cloud Model Studio pricing

Documented inputs

GLM-4.5

Not sourced

Qwen3.8 Max

Not sourced

Documented outputs

GLM-4.5

Not sourced

Qwen3.8 Max

Not sourced

Provider availability

GLM-4.5

Not sourced

Qwen3.8 Max

Not sourced

Reasoning profile

GLM-4.5

Non-Reasoning

Qwen3.8 Max

Reasoning

Weight access

GLM-4.5

Proprietary

Qwen3.8 Max

Proprietary

License

GLM-4.5

Proprietary

Qwen3.8 Max

Proprietary

Release date

GLM-4.5

2025-06-01

Qwen3.8 Max

2026-08-03

If you already use one of these models
Deployment change
The models list different providers, so authentication, endpoint behavior, limits, and feature support may change.
Quality signal
The public evidence has no benchmark result shared by both models, so it does not support a quality verdict.
Workload cost
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Context tradeoff
Qwen3.8 Max has the larger documented window (1M).

Run the same representative tasks against both endpoints before changing production traffic.

Benchmark evidence

The full public result ledger is available for audit without forcing a wide desktop table onto a phone.

Browse raw public benchmark evidence52 rows

Agentic

  • Terminal-Bench 2.1

    GLM-4.5—
    Qwen3.8 Max86.6%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • CoWorkBench

    GLM-4.5—
    Qwen3.8 Max74.8%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • JobBench

    GLM-4.5—
    Qwen3.8 Max53.4%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • skillsBench

    GLM-4.5—
    Qwen3.8 Max70.2%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • Agents' Last Exam

    GLM-4.5—
    Qwen3.8 Max52.4%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • AutomationBench

    GLM-4.5—
    Qwen3.8 Max27.3%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • Toolathlon-Verified

    GLM-4.5—
    Qwen3.8 Max72.5%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • WideResearch

    GLM-4.5—
    Qwen3.8 Max81.9%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • HLE w/ tools

    GLM-4.5—
    Qwen3.8 Max56.2%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • OSWorld-Verified

    GLM-4.5—
    Qwen3.8 Max86.1%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • OSWorld 2.0

    GLM-4.5—
    Qwen3.8 Max19.4%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • WebArena-Verified

    GLM-4.5—
    Qwen3.8 Max66.8%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • AndroidWorld

    GLM-4.5—
    Qwen3.8 Max85.3%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • MobileWorld

    GLM-4.5—
    Qwen3.8 Max77.8%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Coding

  • Terminal-Bench 2.1

    GLM-4.5—
    Qwen3.8 Max86.6%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • SWE-bench Pro

    GLM-4.5—
    Qwen3.8 Max67.7%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • deepSwe

    GLM-4.5—
    Qwen3.8 Max56.6%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • NL2Repo

    GLM-4.5—
    Qwen3.8 Max55.9%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • FrontierSWE

    GLM-4.5—
    Qwen3.8 Max73.5%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • MLS-Bench Lite

    GLM-4.5—
    Qwen3.8 Max41.0%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • PaperBench

    GLM-4.5—
    Qwen3.8 Max93.0%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Reasoning

  • MRCRv2

    GLM-4.5—
    Qwen3.8 Max92.9%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • LongBench v2

    GLM-4.5—
    Qwen3.8 Max66.3%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Knowledge

  • GPQA

    GLM-4.5—
    Qwen3.8 Max92.6%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • GPQA-D

    GLM-4.5—
    Qwen3.8 Max92.6%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • HLE

    GLM-4.5—
    Qwen3.8 Max43.6%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • HLE w/o tools

    GLM-4.5—
    Qwen3.8 Max43.6%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Multimodal

  • MMMU-Pro

    GLM-4.5—
    Qwen3.8 Max82.3%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • MathVision

    GLM-4.5—
    Qwen3.8 Max95.2%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • MathVision w/ Python

    GLM-4.5—
    Qwen3.8 Max97.7%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • BabyVision

    GLM-4.5—
    Qwen3.8 Max82.0%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • BabyVision w/ Python

    GLM-4.5—
    Qwen3.8 Max91.3%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • ZeroBench

    GLM-4.5—
    Qwen3.8 Max24.0%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • ZeroBench w/ Python

    GLM-4.5—
    Qwen3.8 Max49.0%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • MedXpertQA (MM)

    GLM-4.5—
    Qwen3.8 Max80.4%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • ScreenSpot Pro

    GLM-4.5—
    Qwen3.8 Max84.5%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • Vision2Web

    GLM-4.5—
    Qwen3.8 Max69.0%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • CharXiv w/o tools

    GLM-4.5—
    Qwen3.8 Max88.4%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • CharXiv

    GLM-4.5—
    Qwen3.8 Max93.5%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • OmniDocBench 1.5

    GLM-4.5—
    Qwen3.8 Max92.1%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • OCRBench V2

    GLM-4.5—
    Qwen3.8 Max74.2%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • CC-OCR

    GLM-4.5—
    Qwen3.8 Max79.6%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • RealWorldQA

    GLM-4.5—
    Qwen3.8 Max88.0%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • ERQA

    GLM-4.5—
    Qwen3.8 Max77.8%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • SimpleVQA

    GLM-4.5—
    Qwen3.8 Max75.0%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • PerceptionBench

    GLM-4.5—
    Qwen3.8 Max63.5%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • Video-MME (with subtitle)

    GLM-4.5—
    Qwen3.8 Max90.4%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • VideoMMMU

    GLM-4.5—
    Qwen3.8 Max88.7%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • MMVU

    GLM-4.5—
    Qwen3.8 Max82.4%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • MLVU (M-Avg)

    GLM-4.5—
    Qwen3.8 Max90.8%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • LVBench

    GLM-4.5—
    Qwen3.8 Max81.8%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Instruction following

  • IFBench

    GLM-4.5—
    Qwen3.8 Max82.8%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Frequently asked questions

Which is better, GLM-4.5 or Qwen3.8 Max?

The public evidence has no benchmark result shared by both models, so it does not support a quality verdict. The page therefore keeps the decision tied to the specific documented workload.

Which is better for coding, GLM-4.5 or Qwen3.8 Max?

The published evidence does not provide a shared weighted coding basis for both models, so BenchLM does not name a coding winner.

Which is better for agentic tasks, GLM-4.5 or Qwen3.8 Max?

The published evidence does not provide a shared weighted agentic tasks basis for both models, so BenchLM does not name a agentic tasks winner.

Which costs less, GLM-4.5 or Qwen3.8 Max?

Both models do not have comparable published API token rates, so this page does not name a universal price winner.

Which has the larger context window, GLM-4.5 or Qwen3.8 Max?

Qwen3.8 Max has the larger documented context window: 1M, compared with 128K.

Related comparisons

Compare API pricing Read the methodology Open the model selector

Last updated August 3, 2026

Watch GLM-4.5 vs Qwen3.8 Max

One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.

Read a sample issue

Join 2,000+ readers.