Skip to main content

GLM-5.1 vs Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)

Head-to-head comparison across 3benchmark categories. Overall scores shown here use BenchLM's provisional ranking lane.

GLM-5.1

84

VS

Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)

72

1 categoriesvs2 categories

Pick GLM-5.1 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) only becomes the better choice if knowledge is the priority or you need the larger 256K context window.

Category Radar

Head-to-Head by Category

Category Breakdown

Agentic

Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)
65.3vs65.4

+0.1 difference

Coding

GLM-5.1
60.9vs54.1

+6.8 difference

Knowledge

Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)
52.3vs73.9

+21.6 difference

Operational Comparison

GLM-5.1

Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)

Price (per 1M tokens)

$1.4 / $4.4

N/A

Speed

N/A

N/A

Latency (TTFT)

N/A

N/A

Context Window

203K

256K

Quick Verdict

Pick GLM-5.1 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) only becomes the better choice if knowledge is the priority or you need the larger 256K context window.

GLM-5.1 is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 84 to 72. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.

GLM-5.1's sharpest advantage is in coding, where it averages 60.9 against 54.1. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is Terminal-Bench 2.0, 63.5% to 65.4%. Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) does hit back in knowledge, so the answer changes if that is the part of the workload you care about most.

Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) gives you the larger context window at 256K, compared with 203K for GLM-5.1.

Benchmark Deep Dive

Frequently Asked Questions (4)

Which is better, GLM-5.1 or Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)?

GLM-5.1 is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 84 to 72. The biggest single separator in this matchup is Terminal-Bench 2.0, where the scores are 63.5% and 65.4%.

Which is better for knowledge tasks, GLM-5.1 or Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)?

Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 73.9 versus 52.3. GLM-5.1 stays close enough that the answer can still flip depending on your workload.

Which is better for coding, GLM-5.1 or Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)?

GLM-5.1 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 60.9 versus 54.1. Inside this category, SWE-bench Pro is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for agentic tasks, GLM-5.1 or Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)?

Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 65.4 versus 65.3. Inside this category, Terminal-Bench 2.0 is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Self-host vs API cost

Estimates at 50,000 req/day · 1000 tokens/req average.

GLM-5.1
API / mo$4,350
Self-host / mo$18,221
Break-even264M/day
Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)
API / mo$0
Self-host / moN/A
Break-even
Proprietary model — self-hosting not applicable.
Model the full break-even

Related Comparisons

Last updated: April 20, 2026

The AI models change fast. We track them for you.

For engineers, researchers, and the plain curious — a weekly brief on new models, ranking shifts, and pricing changes.

Free. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.