Refresh Models —Deals —Regulatory —Sources —

GLM-5.1 vs Qwen3.5 2B

20 SHARED BENCHMARKS

Across 20 shared benchmarks, GLM-5.1 scores higher on 20 and Qwen3.5 2B on 0. The widest gap is scicode, where GLM-5.1 scores 44.8 against 7.2.

Z.AIVSALIBABA20 SHARED20–0 HEAD-TO-HEAD

BenchmarkGLM-5.1MARGINQwen3.5 2B

AA Agentic Index660.8

AA Intelligence26.46.9

AA-LCR73.725.6

AA-Omniscience0.8-60.2

Artificial Analysis Coding Index55.82.9

GPQA Diamond86.851.6

HLE52.35

IFBench76.341.3

multichallenge6333.7

OmniScience Accuracy25.28.1

OmniScience Non-Hallucination70.125.8

scicode44.87.2

TauBench V3 - Banking13.62.5

Terminal-Bench 2.163.53

Terminal-Bench Hard43.23.8

τ²-Bench Telecom (AA run)97.781.6

τ³-Bench70.66.2

Best tracked score per model per benchmark (default configuration; source-attributed). ↓ marks lower-is-better metrics. Open either model for its full surface, provenance and pricing.

Compare GLM-5.1 withALL PAIRINGS →

Across the fieldQwen3.6 27B Qwen3.7 Max Qwen3.8 Max Preview Qwen3.7 Plus Preview Claude Opus 4 Qwen3.5 4B Gemini 3.6 Flash Nemotron 3 Super 120B A12B

Compare Qwen3.5 2B withALL PAIRINGS →

AlibabaQwen3.5 35B A3B Qwen3 VL 4B (Reasoning)Qwen3.5 397B A17B Qwen2.5 Instruct 72B Qwen3.5 27B Qwen3.6 Plus

Across the fieldGLM-5.2 o4-mini Claude Sonnet 4.6 o1 Gemma 4 31B Kimi K2 Instruct Gemma 4 E2B GPT-4o mini