Skip to main content
BenchLM
Advertise

Model comparison

GLM-5.1 vs Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)

Updated July 31, 2026. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. They are not guarantees for a specific workload.

GLM-5.1

Z.AI

66.8/100

Supported · Public rank #21

90% interval 57.0–76.7

Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)

Alibaba

59.3/100

Supported · Public rank #57

90% interval 40.4–78.2

GLM-5.1 has the higher public score estimate, 66.84 versus 59.3, but the 90% score intervals overlap. Treat that as a lead, not a settled winner.

5 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

    Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)

    Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) 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

    The category averages use different weighted benchmark sets, so they are directional rather than like-for-like.

    Confidence: limited

  • Agentic work

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

    Not enough matched evidence

    The category averages use different weighted benchmark sets, so they are directional rather than like-for-like.

    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-5.1 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. Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) 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
5
GLM-5.1 only
15
Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) only
4
Like-for-like categories
0 / 8

3 categories use different evidence sets. Those rows remain visible for coverage context but do not name a winner.

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

Directional only
GLM-5.1
65.4
Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)
65.4
Weighted basis
2 vs 1 rows
Reading
Directional only

Coding

Directional only
GLM-5.1
61.3
Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)
51.0
Weighted basis
2 vs 2 rows
Reading
Directional only

Math

Directional only
GLM-5.1
62.0
Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)
18.4
Weighted basis
4 vs 2 rows
Reading
Directional only

Reasoning

Not comparable
GLM-5.1
Not measured
Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)
Not measured
Weighted basis
0 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Knowledge

Not comparable
GLM-5.1
52.3
Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)
73.9
Weighted basis
1 vs 1 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multilingual

Not comparable
GLM-5.1
Not measured
Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)
Not measured
Weighted basis
0 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multimodal

Not comparable
GLM-5.1
Not measured
Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)
Not measured
Weighted basis
0 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Instruction following

Not comparable
GLM-5.1
Not measured
Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)
Not measured
Weighted basis
0 vs 0 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.

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.

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
Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)
API rate not published
Fits in one request

Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) has no comparable published API token rate.

Repository review

50K fresh input + 3K output tokens

GLM-5.1
$0.0832
Fits in one request
Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)
API rate not published
Fits in one request

Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) has no comparable published API token rate.

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
Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)
API rate not published
Fits in one request
Cached-input rate unavailable

GLM-5.1 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. Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) 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.

Context window

Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.

GLM-5.1

203K

Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)

256K

API model ID

GLM-5.1

Not sourced

Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)

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

Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)

No comparable hosted API rate

Documented inputs

GLM-5.1

Not sourced

Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)

Not sourced

Documented outputs

GLM-5.1

Not sourced

Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)

Not sourced

Provider availability

GLM-5.1

Not sourced

Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)

Not sourced

Reasoning profile

GLM-5.1

Reasoning

Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)

Reasoning

Weight access

GLM-5.1

Open Weight

Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)

Proprietary

License

GLM-5.1

Open Weight

Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)

Proprietary

Release date

GLM-5.1

2026-04-07

Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)

2026-04-20

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
GLM-5.1 has the higher public score estimate, 66.84 versus 59.3, but the 90% score intervals overlap.
Workload cost
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Context tradeoff
Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) has the larger documented window (256K).

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

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 / moNot listed
Break-even—
Proprietary model — self-hosting not applicable.
Model the full break-even

Benchmark evidence

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

Browse raw public benchmark evidence24 rows

Agentic

  • Terminal-Bench 2.0

    GLM-5.163.5%
    Source
    Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)65.4%
    Source

    Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) leads this result

  • BrowseComp

    GLM-5.168%
    Source
    Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)—

    Not directly comparable

  • τ³-bench results

    GLM-5.170.6%
    Source
    Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)—

    Not directly comparable

  • MCP Atlas

    GLM-5.171.8%
    Source
    Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)—

    Not directly comparable

  • CyberGym

    GLM-5.168.7%
    Source
    Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)—

    Not directly comparable

  • Claw-Eval

    GLM-5.162.3%
    Source
    Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)—

    Not directly comparable

  • Gert Labs

    GLM-5.160.11%
    Source
    Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)—

    Not directly comparable

  • ResearchClawBench

    GLM-5.118.2%
    Source
    Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)—

    Not directly comparable

  • QwenClawBench

    GLM-5.1—
    Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)59.0%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Coding

  • SWE-bench Pro

    GLM-5.158.4%
    Source
    Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)57.3%
    Source

    GLM-5.1 leads this result

  • NL2Repo

    GLM-5.142.7%
    Source
    Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)42.9%
    Source

    Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) leads this result

  • SWE-Rebench

    GLM-5.162.7%
    Source
    Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)—

    Not directly comparable

  • Vibe Code Bench

    GLM-5.131.46%
    Source
    Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)—

    Not directly comparable

  • SciCode

    GLM-5.1—
    Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)47%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • Terminal-Bench 2.0

    GLM-5.1—
    Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)65.4%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Knowledge

  • GPQA-D

    GLM-5.186.2%
    Source
    Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)—

    Not directly comparable

  • HLE

    GLM-5.152.3%
    Source
    Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)—

    Not directly comparable

  • SuperGPQA

    GLM-5.1—
    Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)73.9%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Math

  • AIME26

    GLM-5.195.3%
    Source
    Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)—

    Not directly comparable

  • HMMT Nov 2025

    GLM-5.194.0%
    Source
    Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)—

    Not directly comparable

  • HMMT Feb 2026

    GLM-5.182.6%
    Source
    Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)—

    Not directly comparable

  • MMAnswerBench

    GLM-5.183.8%
    Source
    Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)—

    Not directly comparable

  • FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)

    Shared source
    GLM-5.133.448%
    Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)23.103%

    GLM-5.1 leads this result

  • FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)

    Shared source
    GLM-5.112.500%
    Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)4.167%

    GLM-5.1 leads this result

Frequently asked questions

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

GLM-5.1 has the higher public score estimate, 66.84 versus 59.3, but the 90% score intervals overlap. The higher estimate is not a decisive winner because the uncertainty ranges overlap.

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

The current coding averages use different weighted benchmark sets, so BenchLM does not name a winner from them. Read the shared benchmark rows directly and test the models on the same task set.

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

The current agentic tasks averages use different weighted benchmark sets, so BenchLM does not name a winner from them. Read the shared benchmark rows directly and test the models on the same task set.

Which costs less, GLM-5.1 or Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)?

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-5.1 or Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)?

Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) has the larger documented context window: 256K, compared with 203K.

Related comparisons

Compare API pricing Read the methodology Open the model selector

Last updated July 31, 2026

Watch GLM-5.1 vs Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)

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

Read a sample issue

Join 2,000+ readers.