Model comparison
GLM-5 vs Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)
Head-to-head evidence from 18 shared benchmark results across 6 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: GLM-5 #26 (Supported); Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) #54 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. GLM-5 and Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) share 18 comparable benchmark results. 4 of 8 categories are comparable. 32 results are unique to GLM-5; 4 to Qwen 3.6 Max (preview).
Updated July 17, 2026- Shared results
- 18
- GLM-5 only
- 32
- Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) only
- 4
- Comparable categories
- 4 / 8
Pick GLM-5 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) only becomes the better choice if agentic is the priority or you need the larger 256K context window.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 18 shared benchmark results across 6 evidence categories; 4 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.
Why this result
GLM-5 is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 65.98 to 59.44. 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 mathematics, where it averages 56.3 against 18.4. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is Terminal-Bench 2.0, 56.2% to 65.4%. Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) does hit back in agentic, so the answer changes if that is the part of the workload you care about most.
Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) 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. Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) gives you the larger context window at 256K, compared with 200K for GLM-5.
Category breakdown
Exact category averages are shown below. Not measured means BenchLM does not have enough sourced public coverage for that model and category.
| Category | GLM-5 | Δ | Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Math | GLM-556.3 | Margin← 37.9 | Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)18.4 |
| Coding | GLM-566.3 | Margin← 15.3 | Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)51.0 |
| Agentic | GLM-556.2 | Margin→ 9.2 | Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)65.4 |
| Knowledge | GLM-566.6 | Margin→ 7.3 | Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)73.9 |
| Reasoning | GLM-560.8 | MarginNo overlap | Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)Not measured |
| Multilingual | GLM-583.1 | MarginNo overlap | Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)Not measured |
| Inst. Following | GLM-592.6 | MarginNo overlap | Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)Not measured |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
Terminal-Bench 2.0
AgenticA 56.2%B 65.4%Winner: Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)Δ 9.2Terminal-Bench 2.0: GLM-5 scored 56.2%; Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) scored 65.4%. Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
SuperGPQA
KnowledgeA 66.8%B 73.9%Winner: Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)Δ 7.1SuperGPQA: GLM-5 scored 66.8%; Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) scored 73.9%. Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)
MathA 16.434%B 23.103%Winner: Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)Δ 6.7FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3): GLM-5 scored 16.434%; Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) scored 23.103%. Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
SWE-bench Pro
CodingA 55.1%B 57.3%Winner: Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)Δ 2.2SWE-bench Pro: GLM-5 scored 55.1%; Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) scored 57.3%. Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)
MathA 2.100%B 4.167%Winner: Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)Δ 2.1FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4): GLM-5 scored 2.100%; Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) scored 4.167%. Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | GLM-5 | Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | GLM-5$1 input / $3.2 output | Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)Not available | A complete price comparison is not available. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | GLM-574 tok/s | Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)Not available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | GLM-51.64 s | Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)Not available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | GLM-5200K | Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)256K | Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
AgenticQwen 3.6 Max (preview) wins14 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GLM-5 | Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 56.2% | 65.4% | Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) leads |
| Claw-EvalSource | 57.7% | — | Not comparable |
| QwenClawBenchSource | 54.1% | 59.0% | Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) leads |
| τ³-bench resultsSource | 65.6% | — | Not comparable |
| DeepPlanningSource | 14.6% | — | Not comparable |
| ToolathlonSource | 38% | — | Not comparable |
| MCP AtlasSource | 31.1% | — | Not comparable |
| MCP-TasksSource | 60.8% | — | Not comparable |
| WideResearchSource | 69.8% | — | Not comparable |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | 98.2% | 95.9% | GLM-5 leads |
| CyberGymSource | 43.2% | — | Not comparable |
| APEX-Agents-AASource | 14.5% | — | Not comparable |
| Gert LabsSource | 50.99% | — | Not comparable |
| QwenWebBenchSource | — | 1532 | Not comparable |
CodingGLM-5 wins11 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GLM-5 | Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench VerifiedSource | 77.8% | — | Not comparable |
| SWE-bench Verified*Source | 72.8% | — | Not comparable |
| SWE-bench ProSource | 55.1% | 57.3% | Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) leads |
| SWE MultilingualSource | 73.3% | — | Not comparable |
| SWE-RebenchSource | 62.8% | — | Not comparable |
| React Native EvalsSource | 74.8% | — | Not comparable |
| Terminal-Bench HardSource | 43.2% | 43.9% | Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) leads |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 46.2% | 46.9% | Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) leads |
| SciCodeSource | — | 47% | Not comparable |
| NL2RepoSource | — | 42.9% | Not comparable |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | — | 65.4% | Not comparable |
Reasoning4 benchmarks
KnowledgeQwen 3.6 Max (preview) wins12 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GLM-5 | Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQASource | 86% | — | Not comparable |
| GPQA-DSource | 86.0% | — | Not comparable |
| SuperGPQASource | 66.8% | 73.9% | Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) leads |
| MMLU-ProSource | 85.7% | — | Not comparable |
| MMLU-Pro (Arcee)Source | 85.8% | — | Not comparable |
| HLESource | 50.4% | — | Not comparable |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 39.5% | 40.0% | Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 82.0% | 88.8% | Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) leads |
| AA-HLESource | 27.2% | 28.9% | Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | 2.0% | 10.2% | Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 26.9% | 37.7% | Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 34.0% | 44.2% | GLM-5 leads |
MathGLM-5 wins8 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GLM-5 | Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AIME26Source | 95.8% | — | Not comparable |
| AIME25 (Arcee)Source | 93.3% | — | Not comparable |
| HMMT Feb 2025Source | 97.5% | — | Not comparable |
| HMMT Nov 2025Source | 96.9% | — | Not comparable |
| HMMT Feb 2026Source | 86.4% | — | Not comparable |
| MMAnswerBenchSource | 82.5% | — | Not comparable |
| FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source | 16.434% | 23.103% | Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) leads |
| FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source | 2.100% | 4.167% | Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) leads |
Multilingual2 benchmarks
Multimodal1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GLM-5 | Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Design Arena WebsiteSource | 1282 | — | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (5)
Which is better, GLM-5 or Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)?
GLM-5 is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 65.98 to 59.44. The biggest single separator in this matchup is Terminal-Bench 2.0, where the scores are 56.2% and 65.4%.
Which is better for knowledge tasks, GLM-5 or Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)?
Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 73.9 versus 66.6. Inside this category, AA-Omniscience Accuracy is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for coding, GLM-5 or Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)?
GLM-5 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 66.3 versus 51. Inside this category, SWE-bench Pro is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for math, GLM-5 or Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)?
GLM-5 has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 56.3 versus 18.4. Inside this category, FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3) is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for agentic tasks, GLM-5 or Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)?
Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 65.4 versus 56.2. Inside this category, Terminal-Bench 2.0 is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Related Comparisons
Explore More
The AI models change fast. We track them for you.
A weekly brief for engineers and researchers covering new models, ranking shifts, and pricing changes.
Free. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.