GLM-5.1 (Reasoning) vs Qwen3.7 Max
Which is better for the money: GLM-5.1 (Reasoning) by Z AI or Qwen3.7 Max by Alibaba? Intelligence, total benchmark cost, and end-to-end time from Artificial Analysis & other sources, snapshot 2026-10-25.
Trade-off
Verdict
Depends on your budget
Qwen3.7 Max scores 3.4 points higher (29.5 vs 26.1) but costs 1.5× as much to run the benchmark ($2277 vs $1487; flagship vs premium cost classes). Pick Qwen3.7 Max when the extra intelligence is worth the premium, otherwise GLM-5.1 (Reasoning).
| Metric | GLM-5.1 (Reasoning) | Qwen3.7 Max | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 26.1 | 29.5 | +13.0% Qwen3.7 Max is 13.0% more intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $1,486.78 | $2,277.12 | +53.2% Qwen3.7 Max is 53.2% more expensive |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 60.66s | 16.67s | −72.5% Qwen3.7 Max is 72.5% faster |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $1.28 / $4.07 | $2.50 / $7.50 | |
| Input modalities | Text | Text |
Qwen3.7 Max vs GLM-5.1 (Reasoning): 13.0% more intelligence, 53.2% more cost to run the AA benchmark, and 72.5% faster end-to-end.
Today's Pareto frontier
Against the frontier
- GLM-5.1 (Reasoning) is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, GPT-6.1 Sol (Max) scores 51.80 for $1082.
- Qwen3.7 Max is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, Claude Opus 5.5 (High, Default Fallback) scores 53.60 for $2172.
GLM-5.1 (Reasoning)Qwen3.7 MaxToday's Pareto frontierOpen-weights frontierEvery other model
Matchup
Compare something else
Agents:
Accept: text/markdown or ?format=md returns this page as Markdown. JSON: /api/v1/compare/glm-5-1/qwen3-7-max · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/glm-5-1/qwen3-7-max?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill