GLM-5.2 (Max) vs Qwen3.8 27B (Medium)
Which is better for the money: GLM-5.2 (Max) by Z AI or Qwen3.8 27B (Medium) 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
GLM-5.2 (Max) scores 6.1 points higher (33.7 vs 27.6) but costs 1.8× as much to run the benchmark ($2097 vs $1165; flagship vs premium cost classes). Pick GLM-5.2 (Max) when the extra intelligence is worth the premium, otherwise Qwen3.8 27B (Medium).
| Metric | GLM-5.2 (Max) | Qwen3.8 27B (Medium) | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 33.7 | 27.6 | −18.1% Qwen3.8 27B (Medium) is 18.1% less intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $2,097.29 | $1,165.00 | −44.5% Qwen3.8 27B (Medium) is 44.5% cheaper |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 28.14s | 56.04s | +99.1% Qwen3.8 27B (Medium) is 99.1% slower |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $1.40 / $4.40 | $0.50 / $3.00 | |
| Input modalities | Text | Text, Image, Video |
Qwen3.8 27B (Medium) vs GLM-5.2 (Max): 18.1% less intelligence, 44.5% less cost to run the AA benchmark, and 99.1% slower 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.
- Qwen3.8 27B (Medium) is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, GPT-6.1 Sol (Max) scores 51.80 for $1082.
GLM-5.2 (Max)Qwen3.8 27B (Medium)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/qwen3-8-27b-medium · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/glm-5-2/qwen3-8-27b-medium?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill