Model comparison
GLM-5.1 vs Qwen3.6 Plus
Head-to-head evidence from 31 shared benchmark results across 7 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: GLM-5.1 #18 (Supported); Qwen3.6 Plus #30 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. GLM-5.1 and Qwen3.6 Plus share 31 comparable benchmark results. 4 of 8 categories are comparable. 5 results are unique to GLM-5.1; 29 to Qwen3.6 Plus.
Updated July 23, 2026- Shared results
- 31
- GLM-5.1 only
- 5
- Qwen3.6 Plus only
- 29
- Comparable categories
- 4 / 8
Pick GLM-5.1 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Qwen3.6 Plus only becomes the better choice if coding is the priority or you need the larger 1M context window.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 31 shared benchmark results across 7 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-5.1 has the cleaner BenchAlign overall profile here, landing at 67.74 versus 65.2. It is a real lead, but still close enough that category-level strengths matter more than the headline number.
GLM-5.1's sharpest advantage is in agentic, where it averages 65.4 against 61.6. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is HLE, 52.3% to 28.8%. Qwen3.6 Plus does hit back in coding, so the answer changes if that is the part of the workload you care about most.
Qwen3.6 Plus gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 203K for GLM-5.1.
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-5.1 | Δ | Qwen3.6 Plus |
|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | GLM-5.161.3 | Margin→ 9.0 | Qwen3.6 Plus70.3 |
| Knowledge | GLM-5.152.3 | Margin→ 4.8 | Qwen3.6 Plus57.1 |
| Agentic | GLM-5.165.4 | Margin← 3.8 | Qwen3.6 Plus61.6 |
| Math | GLM-5.162.0 | Margin← 1.5 | Qwen3.6 Plus60.5 |
| Reasoning | GLM-5.1Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.6 Plus62.0 |
| Multilingual | GLM-5.1Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.6 Plus84.7 |
| Multimodal | GLM-5.1Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.6 Plus79.8 |
| Inst. Following | GLM-5.1Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.6 Plus82.3 |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
HLE
KnowledgeA 52.3%B 28.8%Winner: GLM-5.1Δ 23.5HLE: GLM-5.1 scored 52.3%; Qwen3.6 Plus scored 28.8%. GLM-5.1 wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)
MathA 33.448%B 26.207%Winner: GLM-5.1Δ 7.2FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3): GLM-5.1 scored 33.448%; Qwen3.6 Plus scored 26.207%. GLM-5.1 wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
HMMT Feb 2026
MathA 82.6%B 87.8%Winner: Qwen3.6 PlusΔ 5.2HMMT Feb 2026: GLM-5.1 scored 82.6%; Qwen3.6 Plus scored 87.8%. Qwen3.6 Plus wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)
MathA 12.500%B 8.333%Winner: GLM-5.1Δ 4.2FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4): GLM-5.1 scored 12.500%; Qwen3.6 Plus scored 8.333%. GLM-5.1 wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
Terminal-Bench 2.0
AgenticA 63.5%B 61.6%Winner: GLM-5.1Δ 1.9Terminal-Bench 2.0: GLM-5.1 scored 63.5%; Qwen3.6 Plus scored 61.6%. GLM-5.1 wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | GLM-5.1 | Qwen3.6 Plus | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | GLM-5.1$1.4 input / $4.4 output | Qwen3.6 PlusNot available | A complete price comparison is not available. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | GLM-5.1Not available | Qwen3.6 PlusNot available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | GLM-5.1Not available | Qwen3.6 PlusNot available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | GLM-5.1203K | Qwen3.6 Plus1M | Qwen3.6 Plus lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
AgenticGLM-5.1 wins18 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | Qwen3.6 Plus | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 63.5% | 61.6% | GLM-5.1 leads |
| BrowseCompSource | 68% | — | Not comparable |
| τ³-bench resultsSource | 70.6% | 70.7% | Qwen3.6 Plus leads |
| MCP AtlasSource | 71.8% | 48.2% | GLM-5.1 leads |
| CyberGymSource | 68.7% | — | Not comparable |
| Claw-EvalSource | 62.3% | 58.8% | GLM-5.1 leads |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | 29.9% | 27.6% | GLM-5.1 leads |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | 97.7% | 97.7% | Tie |
| GDPval-AASource | 37.8% | 31.8% | GLM-5.1 leads |
| Gert LabsSource | 60.11% | 50.60% | GLM-5.1 leads |
| GDPval-AASource | 1257 | 1135 | GLM-5.1 leads |
| ResearchClawBenchSource | 18.2% | 18.0% | GLM-5.1 leads |
| QwenClawBenchSource | — | 57.2% | Not comparable |
| VITA-BenchSource | — | 44.3% | Not comparable |
| DeepPlanningSource | — | 41.5% | Not comparable |
| ToolathlonSource | — | 39.8% | Not comparable |
| MCP-TasksSource | — | 74.1% | Not comparable |
| WideResearchSource | — | 74.3% | Not comparable |
CodingQwen3.6 Plus wins9 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | Qwen3.6 Plus | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench ProSource | 58.4% | 56.6% | GLM-5.1 leads |
| NL2RepoSource | 42.7% | — | Not comparable |
| SWE-RebenchSource | 62.7% | — | Not comparable |
| Vibe Code BenchSource | 31.46% | 25.56% | GLM-5.1 leads |
| AA Coding IndexSource | 55.8% | 54.5% | GLM-5.1 leads |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 43.8% | 40.7% | GLM-5.1 leads |
| SWE-bench VerifiedSource | — | 78.8% | Not comparable |
| SWE MultilingualSource | — | 73.8% | Not comparable |
| LiveCodeBench v6Source | — | 87.1% | Not comparable |
Reasoning4 benchmarks
KnowledgeQwen3.6 Plus wins13 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | Qwen3.6 Plus | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQA-DSource | 86.2% | — | Not comparable |
| HLESource | 52.3% | 28.8% | GLM-5.1 leads |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 40.2% | 39.6% | GLM-5.1 leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 86.8% | 88.2% | Qwen3.6 Plus leads |
| AA-HLESource | 28.0% | 25.7% | GLM-5.1 leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | 1.9% | 2.7% | Qwen3.6 Plus leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 24.2% | 26.2% | Qwen3.6 Plus leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 29.4% | 32.0% | GLM-5.1 leads |
| GPQASource | — | 90.4% | Not comparable |
| SuperGPQASource | — | 71.6% | Not comparable |
| MMLU-ProSource | — | 88.5% | Not comparable |
| MMLU-ReduxSource | — | 94.5% | Not comparable |
| C-EvalSource | — | 93.3% | Not comparable |
MathGLM-5.1 wins7 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | Qwen3.6 Plus | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AIME26Source | 95.3% | 95.3% | Tie |
| HMMT Nov 2025Source | 94.0% | 94.6% | Qwen3.6 Plus leads |
| HMMT Feb 2026Source | 82.6% | 87.8% | Qwen3.6 Plus leads |
| MMAnswerBenchSource | 83.8% | 83.8% | Tie |
| FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source | 33.448% | 26.207% | GLM-5.1 leads |
| FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source | 12.500% | 8.333% | GLM-5.1 leads |
| HMMT Feb 2025Source | — | 96.7% | Not comparable |
Multilingual2 benchmarks
Multimodal9 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | Qwen3.6 Plus | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Design Arena WebsiteSource | 1305 | 1249 | GLM-5.1 leads |
| MMMUSource | — | 86.0% | Not comparable |
| MMMU-ProSource | — | 78.8% | Not comparable |
| MathVisionSource | — | 88.0% | Not comparable |
| VideoMMMUSource | — | 84.0% | Not comparable |
| ScreenSpot ProSource | — | 68.2% | Not comparable |
| CharXivSource | — | 81.5% | Not comparable |
| V*Source | — | 96.9% | Not comparable |
| AA-MMMU-ProSource | — | 78.0% | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (5)
Which is better, GLM-5.1 or Qwen3.6 Plus?
GLM-5.1 is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 67.74 to 65.2. The biggest single separator in this matchup is HLE, where the scores are 52.3% and 28.8%.
Which is better for knowledge tasks, GLM-5.1 or Qwen3.6 Plus?
Qwen3.6 Plus has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 57.1 versus 52.3. Inside this category, HLE is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for coding, GLM-5.1 or Qwen3.6 Plus?
Qwen3.6 Plus has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 70.3 versus 61.3. Inside this category, Vibe Code Bench is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for math, GLM-5.1 or Qwen3.6 Plus?
GLM-5.1 has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 62 versus 60.5. 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-5.1 or Qwen3.6 Plus?
GLM-5.1 has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 65.4 versus 61.6. Inside this category, GDPval-AA is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Self-host vs API cost
Estimates at 50,000 req/day · 1000 tokens/req average.
Related Comparisons
Explore More
Choose a model with this week’s evidence
Join 2,000+ readers for ranking moves, pricing changes, and the claims that still need proof.
One email each week. Unsubscribe anytime.