Skip to main content

GLM-5 vs Qwen3.5-27B

Head-to-head comparison across 6benchmark categories. Overall scores shown here use BenchLM's provisional ranking lane.

GLM-5

67

VS

Qwen3.5-27B

63

4 categoriesvs2 categories

Verified leaderboard positions: GLM-5 #17 · Qwen3.5-27B #16

Pick GLM-5 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Qwen3.5-27B only becomes the better choice if knowledge is the priority or you want the cheaper token bill.

Category Radar

Head-to-Head by Category

Category Breakdown

Agentic

GLM-5
56.2vs51.6

+4.6 difference

Coding

GLM-5
63.2vs63

+0.2 difference

Reasoning

GLM-5
60.8vs60.6

+0.2 difference

Knowledge

Qwen3.5-27B
70.7vs80.6

+9.9 difference

Multilingual

GLM-5
83.1vs82.2

+0.9 difference

Inst. Following

Qwen3.5-27B
92.6vs95

+2.4 difference

Operational Comparison

GLM-5

Qwen3.5-27B

Price (per 1M tokens)

$1 / $3.2

$0 / $0

Speed

74 t/s

N/A

Latency (TTFT)

1.64s

N/A

Context Window

200K

262K

Quick Verdict

Pick GLM-5 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Qwen3.5-27B only becomes the better choice if knowledge is the priority or you want the cheaper token bill.

GLM-5 is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 67 to 63. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.

GLM-5's sharpest advantage is in agentic, where it averages 56.2 against 51.6. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is Terminal-Bench 2.0, 56.2% to 41.6%. Qwen3.5-27B does hit back in knowledge, so the answer changes if that is the part of the workload you care about most.

GLM-5 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $1.00 input / $3.20 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.00 input / $0.00 output per 1M tokens for Qwen3.5-27B. That is roughly Infinityx on output cost alone. Qwen3.5-27B is the reasoning model in the pair, while GLM-5 is not. That usually helps on harder chain-of-thought-heavy tests, but it can also mean more latency and more token spend in real use. Qwen3.5-27B gives you the larger context window at 262K, compared with 200K for GLM-5.

Benchmark Deep Dive

Frequently Asked Questions (7)

Which is better, GLM-5 or Qwen3.5-27B?

GLM-5 is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 67 to 63. The biggest single separator in this matchup is Terminal-Bench 2.0, where the scores are 56.2% and 41.6%.

Which is better for knowledge tasks, GLM-5 or Qwen3.5-27B?

Qwen3.5-27B has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 80.6 versus 70.7. Inside this category, SuperGPQA is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for coding, GLM-5 or Qwen3.5-27B?

GLM-5 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 63.2 versus 63. Inside this category, SWE-bench Verified is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for reasoning, GLM-5 or Qwen3.5-27B?

GLM-5 has the edge for reasoning in this comparison, averaging 60.8 versus 60.6. Inside this category, LongBench v2 is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for agentic tasks, GLM-5 or Qwen3.5-27B?

GLM-5 has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 56.2 versus 51.6. Inside this category, Terminal-Bench 2.0 is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for instruction following, GLM-5 or Qwen3.5-27B?

Qwen3.5-27B has the edge for instruction following in this comparison, averaging 95 versus 92.6. Inside this category, IFEval is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for multilingual tasks, GLM-5 or Qwen3.5-27B?

GLM-5 has the edge for multilingual tasks in this comparison, averaging 83.1 versus 82.2. Inside this category, MMLU-ProX is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Related Comparisons

Last updated: May 13, 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.