Skip to main content
BenchLM
Advertise

Model comparison

GLM-5.1 vs Qwen3.7 Plus

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 24 shared benchmark results across 7 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

67.74/100
Margin
0.5pts
← winning
67.22/100
0 category wins4 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: GLM-5.1 #18 (Supported); Qwen3.7 Plus #21 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. GLM-5.1 and Qwen3.7 Plus share 24 comparable benchmark results. 4 of 8 categories are comparable. 12 results are unique to GLM-5.1; 45 to Qwen3.7 Plus.

Updated July 23, 2026
Shared results
24
GLM-5.1 only
12
Qwen3.7 Plus only
45
Comparable categories
4 / 8

Pick GLM-5.1 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Qwen3.7 Plus only becomes the better choice if mathematics is the priority or you need the larger 1M context window.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 24 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 67.22. It is a real lead, but still close enough that category-level strengths matter more than the headline number.

Qwen3.7 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 scores and score margins for GLM-5.1 and Qwen3.7 Plus
CategoryGLM-5.1ΔQwen3.7 Plus
MathGLM-5.162.0Margin→ 30.9Qwen3.7 Plus92.9
CodingGLM-5.161.3Margin→ 14.3Qwen3.7 Plus75.6
KnowledgeGLM-5.152.3Margin→ 7.8Qwen3.7 Plus60.1
AgenticGLM-5.165.4Margin→ 6.3Qwen3.7 Plus71.7
ReasoningGLM-5.1Not measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.7 Plus91.7
MultilingualGLM-5.1Not measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.7 Plus85.4
MultimodalGLM-5.1Not measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.7 Plus81.5
Inst. FollowingGLM-5.1Not measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.7 Plus84.5

Decisive benchmark drivers

The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.

More
A · GLM-5.1B · Qwen3.7 Plus

  1. HLE

    Knowledge
    Source ↗
    A 52.3%B 34.7%
    Winner: GLM-5.1Δ 17.6
    HLE: GLM-5.1 scored 52.3%; Qwen3.7 Plus scored 34.7%. GLM-5.1 wins this benchmark.

  2. HMMT Feb 2026

    Math
    Source ↗
    A 82.6%B 92.9%
    Winner: Qwen3.7 PlusΔ 10.3
    HMMT Feb 2026: GLM-5.1 scored 82.6%; Qwen3.7 Plus scored 92.9%. Qwen3.7 Plus wins this benchmark.

  3. Terminal-Bench 2.0

    Agentic
    Source ↗
    A 63.5%B 70.3%
    Winner: Qwen3.7 PlusΔ 6.8
    Terminal-Bench 2.0: GLM-5.1 scored 63.5%; Qwen3.7 Plus scored 70.3%. Qwen3.7 Plus wins this benchmark.

  4. SWE-bench Pro

    Coding
    Source ↗
    A 58.4%B 57.6%
    Winner: GLM-5.1Δ 0.8
    SWE-bench Pro: GLM-5.1 scored 58.4%; Qwen3.7 Plus scored 57.6%. GLM-5.1 wins this benchmark.

Operational comparison

Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.

MetricGLM-5.1Qwen3.7 PlusComparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensGLM-5.1$1.4 input / $4.4 outputQwen3.7 PlusNot availableA complete price comparison is not available.
Generation speedtokens per secondGLM-5.1Not availableQwen3.7 PlusNot availableA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenGLM-5.1Not availableQwen3.7 PlusNot availableA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensGLM-5.1203KQwen3.7 Plus1MQwen3.7 Plus lists the larger context window.

Benchmark Deep Dive

AgenticQwen3.7 Plus wins
BenchmarkGLM-5.1Qwen3.7 PlusResult
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 63.5%70.3%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
BrowseCompSource 68%—Not comparable
τ³-bench resultsSource 70.6%—Not comparable
MCP AtlasSource 71.8%73.2%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
CyberGymSource 68.7%—Not comparable
Claw-EvalSource 62.3%62.7%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
AA Agentic IndexSource 29.9%20.8%GLM-5.1 leads
τ²-bench resultsSource 97.7%93%GLM-5.1 leads
GDPval-AASource 37.8%21.8%GLM-5.1 leads
Gert LabsSource 60.11%—Not comparable
GDPval-AASource 1257936GLM-5.1 leads
ResearchClawBenchSource 18.2%—Not comparable
QwenClawBenchSource —61.8%Not comparable
QwenWebBenchSource —1536Not comparable
BFCL v4Source —72.9%Not comparable
VITA-BenchSource —45.6%Not comparable
DeepPlanningSource —62.3%Not comparable
OSWorld-VerifiedSource —73.3%Not comparable
AndroidWorldSource —81.0%Not comparable
APEX-Agents-AASource —22.4%Not comparable
OSWorld 2.0Source —2.8%Not comparable
CodingQwen3.7 Plus wins
BenchmarkGLM-5.1Qwen3.7 PlusResult
SWE-bench ProSource 58.4%57.6%GLM-5.1 leads
NL2RepoSource 42.7%41.1%GLM-5.1 leads
SWE-RebenchSource 62.7%—Not comparable
Vibe Code BenchSource 31.46%—Not comparable
AA Coding IndexSource 55.8%55.9%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
AA-SciCodeSource 43.8%45.5%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source —70.3%Not comparable
SWE-bench VerifiedSource —77.7%Not comparable
SWE MultilingualSource —75.8%Not comparable
SciCodeSource —51.3%Not comparable
LiveCodeBenchSource —89.6%Not comparable
Reasoning
BenchmarkGLM-5.1Qwen3.7 PlusResult
AA-LCRSource 62.3%65.0%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
CritPtSource 4.6%9.1%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
MRCRv2Source —91.7%Not comparable
KnowledgeQwen3.7 Plus wins
BenchmarkGLM-5.1Qwen3.7 PlusResult
GPQA-DSource 86.2%90.3%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
HLESource 52.3%34.7%GLM-5.1 leads
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource 40.2%39.0%GLM-5.1 leads
AA-GPQA DiamondSource 86.8%90.0%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
AA-HLESource 28.0%33.4%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
AA-Omniscience IndexSource 1.9%2.4%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource 24.2%22.2%GLM-5.1 leads
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource 29.4%25.5%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
GPQASource —90.3%Not comparable
MMLU-ProSource —88.5%Not comparable
MMLU-ReduxSource —94.5%Not comparable
SuperGPQASource —71.4%Not comparable
MMMLUSource —89.0%Not comparable
MathQwen3.7 Plus wins
BenchmarkGLM-5.1Qwen3.7 PlusResult
AIME26Source 95.3%—Not comparable
HMMT Nov 2025Source 94.0%—Not comparable
HMMT Feb 2026Source 82.6%92.9%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
MMAnswerBenchSource 83.8%—Not comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source 33.448%—Not comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source 12.500%—Not comparable
IMOAnswerBenchSource —86.0%Not comparable
ApexSource —22.7%Not comparable
Multilingual
BenchmarkGLM-5.1Qwen3.7 PlusResult
MMLU-ProXSource —85.4%Not comparable
NOVA-63Source —58.8%Not comparable
INCLUDESource —83.0%Not comparable
MAXIFESource —88.8%Not comparable
PolyMathSource —84.0%Not comparable
Multimodal
BenchmarkGLM-5.1Qwen3.7 PlusResult
Design Arena WebsiteSource 13051288GLM-5.1 leads
MMMU-ProSource —79%Not comparable
MathVisionSource —90.3%Not comparable
CharXivSource —85.9%Not comparable
ERQASource —69.8%Not comparable
MedXpertQA (MM)Source —71.0%Not comparable
ScreenSpot ProSource —79.0%Not comparable
SimpleVQASource —81.7%Not comparable
MMSearch-PlusSource —41.4%Not comparable
RealWorldQASource —86.9%Not comparable
OmniDocBench 1.5Source —91.4%Not comparable
OCRBench V2Source —70.7%Not comparable
ODINW13Source —51.1%Not comparable
Video-MME (with subtitle)Source —88.0%Not comparable
VideoMMMUSource —85.4%Not comparable
MLVU (M-Avg)Source —87.4%Not comparable
AA-MMMU-ProSource —80.5%Not comparable
Inst. Following
BenchmarkGLM-5.1Qwen3.7 PlusResult
AA-IFBenchSource 76.3%78.0%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
IFEvalSource —94.6%Not comparable
IFBenchSource —79.1%Not comparable
Frequently Asked Questions (5)

Which is better, GLM-5.1 or Qwen3.7 Plus?

GLM-5.1 is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 67.74 to 67.22. The biggest single separator in this matchup is HLE, where the scores are 52.3% and 34.7%.

Which is better for knowledge tasks, GLM-5.1 or Qwen3.7 Plus?

Qwen3.7 Plus has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 60.1 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 Qwen3.7 Plus?

Qwen3.7 Plus has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 75.6 versus 61.3. Inside this category, AA-SciCode is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for math, GLM-5.1 or Qwen3.7 Plus?

Qwen3.7 Plus has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 92.9 versus 62. Inside this category, HMMT Feb 2026 is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for agentic tasks, GLM-5.1 or Qwen3.7 Plus?

Qwen3.7 Plus has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 71.7 versus 65.4. 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.

GLM-5.1
API / mo$4,350
Self-host / mo$18,221
Break-even264M/day
Qwen3.7 Plus
API / mo$0
Self-host / moNot listed
Break-even—
Proprietary model — self-hosting not applicable.
Model the full break-even

Related Comparisons

Explore More

Z.AI Compare Pricing Methodology Find Your Best LLM Overall Rankings
Last updated: July 23, 2026

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.