GLM-5.1 (Reasoning) vs Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B
Which is better for the money: GLM-5.1 (Reasoning) by Z AI or Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B by Alibaba? Intelligence, total benchmark cost, and end-to-end time from Artificial Analysis & other sources, snapshot 2026-10-26.
Trade-off
Verdict
Depends on your budget
Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B scores 13.8 points higher (39.9 vs 26.1) but costs 1.8× as much to run the benchmark ($2632 vs $1487; flagship vs premium cost classes). Pick Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B when the extra intelligence is worth the premium, otherwise GLM-5.1 (Reasoning).
| Metric | GLM-5.1 (Reasoning) | Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 26.1 | 39.9 | +52.9% Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B is 52.9% more intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $1,486.78 | $2,632.05 | +77.0% Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B is 77.0% more expensive |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 59.15s | 61.67s | +4.3% Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B is 4.3% slower |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $1.28 / $4.07 | $2.00 / $6.00 | |
| Input modalities | Text | Text |
Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B vs GLM-5.1 (Reasoning): 52.9% more intelligence, 77.0% more cost to run the AA benchmark, and 4.3% slower 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.
- Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B 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)Qwen3.8 2.4T A95BToday'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/qwen3-8-2-4t-a95b · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/glm-5-1/qwen3-8-2-4t-a95b?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill