Long documents
Prompts that approach the documented context limit
GLM-5.1
GLM-5.1 has the larger documented context window.
Confidence: documented
GLM-5.1 vs Qwen3.5 397B
Updated September 23, 2026. We do not rank this pair: at least one has no public score. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty.
Both of these models will change. Get the price, version and retirement notices for the pair, each with its source. Follow model changes
Share or export
Decision reading
At least one model is not scored in the current public ranking lane, so the page does not name an overall quality winner. 13 results are shared. Category rows resting on Estimated evidence or different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.
- Shared results
- 13
- GLM-5.1 only
- 13
- Qwen3.5 397B only
- 25
- Like-for-like categories
- 0 / 8
Supported: GLM-5.1How the comparison works
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.
Chat turn cost
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
Qwen3.5 397B
Qwen3.5 397B has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Confidence: listed-rates
Show secondary and unsupported calls
Repository review cost
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
Qwen3.5 397B
Qwen3.5 397B has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Confidence: listed-ratesCoding work
Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks
Not enough matched evidence
Qwen3.5 397B is not ranked on the public lane for coding, so no winner is named for coding.
Confidence: limitedAgentic work
Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion
Not enough matched evidence
Qwen3.5 397B is not ranked on the public lane for agentic, so no winner is named for agentic.
Confidence: limitedCache-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-5.1 does not fit this workload in one request. Qwen3.5 397B does not fit this workload in one request. GLM-5.1 has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate. Qwen3.5 397B has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.
Confidence: rate-fallback
Which one for a specific job
Choose a job from the LLM Selector's task catalog to see the category row it rests on, under the same basis rules as the table below. A directional row stays directional; choosing a job never creates a winner.
The same task catalog as the LLM Selector. Each job names the evidence surface it rests on; nothing here adds a new score.
51.5GLM-5.1—Qwen3.5 397B
Not comparable · BenchAlign v5.6
The coding row is not comparable on the public lane: at least one model is not measured or not ranked there.
Coding scores combine specific tasks and setups. Match the editor, harness, and effort to your workflow.
Same basis rules as the category table below
What is actually comparable
Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results present for only one model describe coverage, not superiority.
13 GLM-5.1 only
13 Shared
25 Qwen3.5 397B only
1 category rests on Estimated evidence or different evidence sets. Those rows remain visible for coverage context but do not name a winner.
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.
Too few matched category axes support a radar. The ruled list below shows only shared benchmark results; positions use each benchmark’s normalized display scale when available.
HLEKnowledge
Normalized gap 23.6GLM-5.1:52.3%Qwen3.5 397B:28.7%Terminal-Bench 2.0Agentic
Normalized gap 11.0GLM-5.1:63.5%Qwen3.5 397B:52.5%SWE-bench ProCoding
Normalized gap 7.5GLM-5.1:58.4%Qwen3.5 397B:50.9%BrowseCompAgentic
Normalized gap 6.0GLM-5.1:68%Qwen3.5 397B:62%HMMT Feb 2026Math
Normalized gap 5.3GLM-5.1:82.6%Qwen3.5 397B:87.9%
Bars run 0–100 on each benchmark’s normalized display scale
Category results, on a stated basis
Each row shows the public-lane category score for both models: the BenchAlign v5.6 lane for agentic, coding, and knowledge, and the weighted public rows elsewhere, with the same rank each model page reports. A row is like-for-like only when both scores rest on Supported evidence or the same weighted set. Directional and not-comparable rows remain visible, but they never receive a winner.
Instruction following
Directional only- GLM-5.1
- 92.4
- #4/124
- Qwen3.5 397B
- 0.0
- #124/124
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Agentic
Not comparable- GLM-5.1
- 42.1
- Estimated · #43/105
- Qwen3.5 397B
- Not ranked
- Basis
- BenchAlign v5.6 lane · 9 vs 13 public rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Coding
Not comparable- GLM-5.1
- 51.5
- Supported · #36/135
- Qwen3.5 397B
- Not ranked
- Basis
- BenchAlign v5.6 lane · 7 vs 3 public rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Reasoning
Not comparable- GLM-5.1
- 71.7
- Unranked · 2 rankable rows
- Qwen3.5 397B
- 59.8
- Unranked · 2 rankable rows
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multimodal
Not comparable- GLM-5.1
- Not ranked
- Qwen3.5 397B
- 62.9
- #28/50
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 2 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Knowledge
Not comparable- GLM-5.1
- 50.2
- Supported · #54/160
- Qwen3.5 397B
- Not ranked
- Basis
- BenchAlign v5.6 lane · 4 vs 6 public rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multilingual
Not comparable- GLM-5.1
- Not ranked
- Qwen3.5 397B
- 69.7
- #5/12
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Math
Not comparable- GLM-5.1
- 63.8
- #3/7
- Qwen3.5 397B
- 73.5
- Unranked · 5 rankable rows
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 4 vs 2 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
| Category | GLM-5.1 | Qwen3.5 397B | Basis | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Instruction following | 92.4#4/124 | 0.0#124/124 | Directional onlyProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Directional only |
| Agentic | 42.1Estimated · #43/105 | Not ranked | Not comparableBenchAlign v5.6 lane · 9 vs 13 public rows | Not comparable |
| Coding | 51.5Supported · #36/135 | Not ranked | Not comparableBenchAlign v5.6 lane · 7 vs 3 public rows | Not comparable |
| Reasoning | 71.7Unranked · 2 rankable rows | 59.8Unranked · 2 rankable rows | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Multimodal | Not ranked | 62.9#28/50 | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 2 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Knowledge | 50.2Supported · #54/160 | Not ranked | Not comparableBenchAlign v5.6 lane · 4 vs 6 public rows | Not comparable |
| Multilingual | Not ranked | 69.7#5/12 | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Math | 63.8#3/7 | 73.5Unranked · 5 rankable rows | Not comparableProvisional lane · 4 vs 2 weighted rows | Not comparable |
Ranks count the models scored in each category’s lane, so the agentic, coding, and knowledge denominators (BenchAlign v5.6) differ from the provisional-lane categories. Unranked scores sit on the provisional lane’s scale but never name a winner. Like-for-like rows within 0.5 points read as a practical tie.
Supported evidence per lane · bars run 0–100Methodology
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-5.1
- $0.0036
- Fits in one request
- Qwen3.5 397B
- $0.0024
- Fits in one request
Qwen3.5 397B has the lower modeled cost
Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Repository review
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
- GLM-5.1
- $0.0832
- Fits in one request
- Qwen3.5 397B
- $0.0408
- Fits in one request
Qwen3.5 397B has the lower modeled cost
Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Cache-heavy agent loop
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
- GLM-5.1
- $0.352
- Does not fit in one request
- Cached input priced at the published list-input rate
- Qwen3.5 397B
- $0.168
- Does not fit in one request
- Cached input priced at the published list-input rate
GLM-5.1 does not fit this workload in one request. Qwen3.5 397B does not fit this workload in one request. GLM-5.1 has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate. Qwen3.5 397B has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.
Cached input falls back to the list input rate only where a cached rate is unpublished
Specification differences
Sourced differences are shown directly. Missing facts stay explicit instead of being inferred from a model name or family.
SpecificationGLM-5.1Qwen3.5 397B
Context window
Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.
GLM-5.1
203K
Qwen3.5 397B
128K
API model ID
GLM-5.1
Not sourced
Qwen3.5 397B
Not sourced
Cached-input rate
A missing cached-input rate falls back to the listed input rate only in the stated workload estimate.
GLM-5.1
Not published
Qwen3.5 397B
Not published
Documented inputs
GLM-5.1
Not sourced
Qwen3.5 397B
Not sourced
Documented outputs
GLM-5.1
Not sourced
Qwen3.5 397B
Not sourced
Provider availability
GLM-5.1
Not sourced
Qwen3.5 397B
Not sourced
Reasoning profile
GLM-5.1
Reasoning
Qwen3.5 397B
Non-Reasoning
Weight access
GLM-5.1
Open Weight
Qwen3.5 397B
Open Weight
License
GLM-5.1
Open Weight
Qwen3.5 397B
Open Weight
Release date
GLM-5.1
2026-04-07
Qwen3.5 397B
2026-02-16
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
- At least one model is not scored in the current public ranking lane, so the page does not name an overall quality winner.
- Workload cost
- Repository review: $0.0832 vs $0.0408. Cache-heavy agent loop: $0.352 vs $0.168.
- Context tradeoff
- GLM-5.1 has the larger documented window (203K).
Run the same representative tasks against both endpoints before changing production traffic.
Questions
Which is better, GLM-5.1 or Qwen3.5 397B?
At least one model is not scored in the current public ranking lane, so the page does not name an overall quality winner. The page therefore keeps the decision tied to the specific documented workload.
Which is better for coding, GLM-5.1 or Qwen3.5 397B?
Qwen3.5 397B is not ranked on the public lane for coding, so no winner is named for coding.
Which is better for agentic tasks, GLM-5.1 or Qwen3.5 397B?
Qwen3.5 397B is not ranked on the public lane for agentic tasks, so no winner is named for agentic tasks.
Which costs less, GLM-5.1 or Qwen3.5 397B?
For the stated presets, chat costs $0.0036 on GLM-5.1 and $0.0024 on Qwen3.5 397B; repository review costs $0.0832 and $0.0408; the cache-heavy agent loop costs $0.352 and $0.168. GLM-5.1 does not fit this workload in one request. Qwen3.5 397B does not fit this workload in one request. GLM-5.1 has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate. Qwen3.5 397B has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.
Which has the larger context window, GLM-5.1 or Qwen3.5 397B?
GLM-5.1 has the larger documented context window: 203K, compared with 128K.
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
Qwen3.5 397B
API / mo$3,150
Self-host / moNot listed
Break-even—
Proprietary model — self-hosting not applicable.
Benchmark evidence
The full public result ledger is available for audit without forcing a wide desktop table onto a phone.
Browse raw public benchmark evidence51 rows
Agentic
Terminal-Bench 2.0
GLM-5.163.5%SourceQwen3.5 397B52.5%SourceGLM-5.1 leads this result
BrowseComp
GLM-5.168%SourceQwen3.5 397B62%SourceGLM-5.1 leads this result
τ³-bench results
GLM-5.170.6%SourceQwen3.5 397B68.4%SourceGLM-5.1 leads this result
MCP Atlas
GLM-5.171.8%SourceQwen3.5 397B46.1%SourceGLM-5.1 leads this result
CyberGym
GLM-5.168.7%SourceQwen3.5 397B—Not directly comparable
Claw-Eval
Shared sourceGLM-5.162.3%Qwen3.5 397B56.8%GLM-5.1 leads this result
Gert Labs
Shared sourceGLM-5.160.11%Qwen3.5 397B46.76%GLM-5.1 leads this result
ResearchClawBench
Shared sourceGLM-5.118.2%Qwen3.5 397B14.2%GLM-5.1 leads this result
Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals)
GLM-5.156.9%SourceQwen3.5 397B—Not directly comparable
QwenClawBench
GLM-5.1—Qwen3.5 397B51.8%SourceNot directly comparable
VITA-Bench
GLM-5.1—Qwen3.5 397B43.7%SourceNot directly comparable
DeepPlanning
GLM-5.1—Qwen3.5 397B37.6%SourceNot directly comparable
Toolathlon
GLM-5.1—Qwen3.5 397B36.3%SourceNot directly comparable
MCP-Tasks
GLM-5.1—Qwen3.5 397B74.2%SourceNot directly comparable
WideResearch
GLM-5.1—Qwen3.5 397B74.0%SourceNot directly comparable
Coding
SWE-bench Pro
GLM-5.158.4%SourceQwen3.5 397B50.9%SourceGLM-5.1 leads this result
NL2Repo
GLM-5.142.7%SourceQwen3.5 397B—Not directly comparable
SWE-Rebench
GLM-5.162.7%SourceQwen3.5 397B—Not directly comparable
Vibe Code Bench
GLM-5.131.46%SourceQwen3.5 397B—Not directly comparable
OpenHarmony Bench
GLM-5.152.3%SourceQwen3.5 397B—Not directly comparable
LiveCodeBench (Vals)
GLM-5.181.4%SourceQwen3.5 397B—Not directly comparable
SWE-bench (Vals)
GLM-5.176.4%SourceQwen3.5 397B—Not directly comparable
SWE-bench Verified
GLM-5.1—Qwen3.5 397B76.2%SourceNot directly comparable
LiveCodeBench v6
GLM-5.1—Qwen3.5 397B83.6%SourceNot directly comparable
Reasoning
Multimodal
MMMU-Pro
GLM-5.1—Qwen3.5 397B79%SourceNot directly comparable
MathVision
GLM-5.1—Qwen3.5 397B88.6%SourceNot directly comparable
CharXiv
GLM-5.1—Qwen3.5 397B80.8%SourceNot directly comparable
VideoMMMU
GLM-5.1—Qwen3.5 397B84.7%SourceNot directly comparable
ScreenSpot Pro
GLM-5.1—Qwen3.5 397B65.6%SourceNot directly comparable
V*
GLM-5.1—Qwen3.5 397B95.8%SourceNot directly comparable
Knowledge
GPQA-D
GLM-5.186.2%SourceQwen3.5 397B—Not directly comparable
HLE
GLM-5.152.3%SourceQwen3.5 397B28.7%SourceGLM-5.1 leads this result
GPQA Diamond (Vals)
GLM-5.184.5%SourceQwen3.5 397B—Not directly comparable
MMLU-Pro (Vals)
GLM-5.186.9%SourceQwen3.5 397B—Not directly comparable
GPQA
GLM-5.1—Qwen3.5 397B88.4%SourceNot directly comparable
SuperGPQA
GLM-5.1—Qwen3.5 397B70.4%SourceNot directly comparable
MMLU-Pro
GLM-5.1—Qwen3.5 397B87.8%SourceNot directly comparable
MMLU-Redux
GLM-5.1—Qwen3.5 397B94.9%SourceNot directly comparable
C-Eval
GLM-5.1—Qwen3.5 397B93%SourceNot directly comparable
Multilingual
Instruction following
IFEval
GLM-5.1—Qwen3.5 397B92.6%SourceNot directly comparable
Math
AIME26
GLM-5.195.3%SourceQwen3.5 397B93.3%SourceGLM-5.1 leads this result
HMMT Nov 2025
GLM-5.194.0%SourceQwen3.5 397B92.7%SourceGLM-5.1 leads this result
HMMT Feb 2026
GLM-5.182.6%SourceQwen3.5 397B87.9%SourceQwen3.5 397B leads this result
MMAnswerBench
GLM-5.183.8%SourceQwen3.5 397B80.9%SourceGLM-5.1 leads this result
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)
GLM-5.133.448%SourceQwen3.5 397B—Not directly comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)
GLM-5.112.500%SourceQwen3.5 397B—Not directly comparable
HMMT Feb 2025
GLM-5.1—Qwen3.5 397B94.8%SourceNot directly comparable
51 public results · 13 shared
Watch GLM-5.1 vs Qwen3.5 397B
One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.
Read a sample issueJoin 2,000+ readers.
Last updated September 23, 2026