GLM-5.2 (Max) vs Qwen3.5 122B A10B (Reasoning)
Which is better for the money: GLM-5.2 (Max) by Z AI or Qwen3.5 122B A10B (Reasoning) 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
GLM-5.2 (Max) scores 18.1 points higher (33.7 vs 15.6) but costs 3.2× as much to run the benchmark ($2097 vs $661; flagship vs premium cost classes). They are not alternatives at one budget: pick GLM-5.2 (Max) when you need intelligence above 15.6, and Qwen3.5 122B A10B (Reasoning) when 15.6 is enough.
| Metric | GLM-5.2 (Max) | Qwen3.5 122B A10B (Reasoning) | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 33.7 | 15.6 | −53.7% Qwen3.5 122B A10B (Re… is 53.7% less intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $2,097.29 | $661.29 | −68.5% Qwen3.5 122B A10B (Re… is 68.5% cheaper |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 28.14s | 21.43s | −23.8% Qwen3.5 122B A10B (Re… is 23.8% faster |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $1.40 / $4.40 | $0.40 / $3.20 | |
| Input modalities | Text | Text, Image |
Qwen3.5 122B A10B (Reasoning) vs GLM-5.2 (Max): 53.7% less intelligence, 68.5% less cost to run the AA benchmark, and 23.8% faster end-to-end.
Today's Pareto frontier
Against the frontier
- GLM-5.2 (Max) is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, GPT-6.1 Sol (Max) scores 51.80 for $1082.
- Qwen3.5 122B A10B (Reasoning) is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, GPT-6.1 Sol (High) scores 50.20 for $521.
GLM-5.2 (Max)Qwen3.5 122B A10B (Reasoning)Today'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-5-2/qwen3-5-122b-a10b · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/glm-5-2/qwen3-5-122b-a10b?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill