GLM-5.1 vs Qwen3.5 27B
Wins 5 of 7 areas
Coding · Agents · Reasoning · Facts · Math
Wins 1 of 7 areas
Long documents
GLM-5.1 is the stronger all-rounder.Qwen3.5 27B is cheaper and better at long documents.
Scores updated · 33 tests both models report · How we compare
Where each one wins
Tests won in each of the seven 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 software70GLM-5.17 of 7 tests
- ReasoningHard problems that need careful thinking30GLM-5.13 of 3 tests
- MathCompetition and research-level math30GLM-5.13 of 3 tests
- AgentsCarrying out multi-step tasks on its own31GLM-5.13 of 4 tests
- FactsGetting facts right instead of making them up20GLM-5.12 of 2 tests
- Long documentsFinding answers in very long texts01Qwen3.5 27B1 of 1 test
- Following instructionsDoing exactly what it is asked00Even0 each · 1 tie
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.
Qwen3.5 27B costs 53% 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+51.6points ahead
- Finds hard-to-locate facts by browsing the webBrowseComp+18.3points ahead
- Hard command-line tasks in a real terminalTerminal-Bench Hard+10.6points ahead
Every test, side by side
All 33 tests both models report. The winning score is in its model's colour; marks a score checked independently.
CodingGLM-5.1
- LMArena · WebDevGLM-5.1 by 151 rating points15081357+151 rating
- Terminal-Bench HardGLM-5.1 by 10.643.232.6+10.6
- SWE-bench ProGLM-5.1 by 7.258.451.2+7.2
- SciCodeGLM-5.1 by 5.344.839.5+5.3
- LiveCodeBench v6GLM-5.1 by 585.780.7+5
- SWE-bench MultilingualGLM-5.1 by 473.369.3+4
- SWE-bench VerifiedGLM-5.1 by 3.876.272.4+3.8
AgentsGLM-5.1
- BrowseCompGLM-5.1 by 18.379.361+18.3
- AA IT-Bench SREGLM-5.1 by 4.840.335.5+4.8
- MCP AtlasGLM-5.1 by 3.471.868.4+3.4
- GDPValQwen3.5 27B by 23133+2
ReasoningGLM-5.1
- Humanity's Last ExamGLM-5.1 by 6.230.123.9+6.2
- CritPtGLM-5.1 by 3.74.60.9+3.7
- GPQA DiamondGLM-5.1 by 186.885.8+1
FactsGLM-5.1
- AA-Omniscience · Non-hallucinationGLM-5.1 by 51.670.118.5+51.6
- AA-Omniscience · AccuracyGLM-5.1 by 323.720.7+3
MathGLM-5.1
- IMOAnswerBenchGLM-5.1 by 3.983.879.9+3.9
- AIME 2026GLM-5.1 by 3.695.391.7+3.6
- HMMT Feb. 2026GLM-5.1 by 1.582.681.1+1.5
Other results12 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.
- AA-OmniscienceGLM-5.1 by 44.90.8-44+44.9
- AA Agentic IndexQwen3.5 27B by 29.425.254.6+29.4
- Terminal-Bench 2.0GLM-5.1 by 27.46941.6+27.4
- Artificial Analysis Coding IndexGLM-5.1 by 20.955.834.9+20.9
- NL2RepoGLM-5.1 by 15.442.727.3+15.4
- Tool-DecathlonGLM-5.1 by 9.240.731.5+9.2
- HMMT 2025GLM-5.1 by 4.29489.8+4.2
- HMMT Nov. 2025GLM-5.1 by 4.29489.8+4.2
- τ²-Bench Telecom (AA run)GLM-5.1 by 3.897.793.9+3.8
- AA IntelligenceGLM-5.1 by 3.226.122.9+3.2
- τ³-BenchGLM-5.1 by 2.270.668.4+2.2
- MMLU-Protie8686.1tie
Questions people ask
Which is better, GLM-5.1 or Qwen3.5 27B?
GLM-5.1 wins five of the seven areas where both have results: coding, agents, reasoning, facts and math. Qwen3.5 27B wins long documents, and costs 53% less. They are level on following instructions.
Which is better for coding?
GLM-5.1. It wins 7 of the 7 coding tests both models report; Qwen3.5 27B wins none.
Which is cheaper?
GLM-5.1 costs $1.38 per million input tokens and $4.40 per million output tokens; Qwen3.5 27B costs $0.30 and $2.40. That makes Qwen3.5 27B about 53% cheaper for the same work.
How do you compare the two?
We use the 33 benchmark tests both models have published scores on. The verdict counts the 21 tests in the eight capability areas, and a gap under one point (ten on rating-style scales) counts as a tie. The other 12 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.