GLM-5.1 vs Qwen2.5 Instruct 72B
Wins 5 of 5 areas
Coding · Reasoning · Facts · Long documents · Following instructions
Wins 0 of 5 areas
—
GLM-5.1 is the stronger all-rounder.Qwen2.5 Instruct 72B is cheaper.
Scores updated · 16 tests both models report · How we compare
Where each one wins
Tests won in each of the five areas where both have results. Each piece is one test, so a longer bar means more evidence; grey means the two scored within a point of each other.
- CodingWriting and fixing software30GLM-5.13 of 3 tests
- ReasoningHard problems that need careful thinking30GLM-5.13 of 3 tests
- FactsGetting facts right instead of making them up20GLM-5.12 of 2 tests
- Long documentsFinding answers in very long texts10GLM-5.11 of 1 test
- Following instructionsDoing exactly what it is asked10GLM-5.11 of 1 test
Long documents and following instructions rest on a single test each.
What it costs
Prices per million tokens, roughly 750,000 words. The bars show the cost of a million tokens read plus a million written.
Qwen2.5 Instruct 72B costs 83% less for the same work.
The biggest differences
The tests each model wins by the widest margin, up to three each. Scores are out of 100.
Where GLM-5.1 pulls ahead
- Avoids making up answers it doesn't knowAA-Omniscience · Non-hallucination+55.6points ahead
- Reasons across sets of long documentsAA-LCR+53.7points ahead
- Fixes real GitHub issues in Python projectsSWE-bench Verified+52.4points ahead
Where Qwen2.5 Instruct 72B pulls ahead
No clear win on a test scored out of 100.
Every test, side by side
All 16 tests both models report. The winning score is in its model's colour; marks a score checked independently.
CodingGLM-5.1
- SWE-bench VerifiedGLM-5.1 by 52.476.223.8+52.4
- Terminal-Bench HardGLM-5.1 by 38.743.24.5+38.7
- SciCodeGLM-5.1 by 18.144.826.7+18.1
ReasoningGLM-5.1
- GPQA DiamondGLM-5.1 by 37.786.849.1+37.7
- Humanity's Last ExamGLM-5.1 by 26.530.13.6+26.5
- CritPtGLM-5.1 by 4.64.60+4.6
FactsGLM-5.1
- AA-Omniscience · Non-hallucinationGLM-5.1 by 55.670.114.5+55.6
- AA-Omniscience · AccuracyGLM-5.1 by 6.223.717.5+6.2
Other results6 tests, not counted
Tests outside the eight areas. They are not counted above: several are summary scores built from other tests, or the same test under another name.
- τ²-Bench Telecom (AA run)GLM-5.1 by 63.297.734.5+63.2
- AA-OmniscienceGLM-5.1 by 540.8-53.1+54
- Artificial Analysis Coding IndexGLM-5.1 by 43.955.811.9+43.9
- AA IntelligenceGLM-5.1 by 18.426.17.7+18.4
- LiveBenchGLM-5.1 by 17.970.252.3+17.9
- MMLU-ProGLM-5.1 by 14.98671.1+14.9
Questions people ask
Which is better, GLM-5.1 or Qwen2.5 Instruct 72B?
GLM-5.1 wins all five areas where both have results: coding, reasoning, facts, long documents and following instructions. Qwen2.5 Instruct 72B wins none, but costs 83% less.
Which is better for coding?
GLM-5.1. It wins 3 of the 3 coding tests both models report; Qwen2.5 Instruct 72B wins none.
Which is cheaper?
GLM-5.1 costs $1.38 per million input tokens and $4.40 per million output tokens; Qwen2.5 Instruct 72B costs $0.47 and $0.49. That makes Qwen2.5 Instruct 72B about 83% cheaper for the same work.
How do you compare the two?
We use the 16 benchmark tests both models have published scores on. The verdict counts the 10 tests in the eight capability areas, and a gap under one point (ten on rating-style scales) counts as a tie. The other 6 are listed but not counted, because several are summary scores or repeat a test. Each score is the one shown on the model's own page.