GLM-5.2 (max) vs Qwen3 Coder Next
Which is better for the money: GLM-5.2 (max) by Z AI or Qwen3 Coder Next by Alibaba? Intelligence, total benchmark cost, and end-to-end time from Artificial Analysis & other sources, snapshot 2026-08-19.
Trade-off
Verdict
Depends on your budget
GLM-5.2 (max) scores 31.3 points higher (52.6 vs 21.3) but costs 3.4× as much to run the benchmark ($843 vs $250; premium vs mid-range cost classes). They are not alternatives at one budget: pick GLM-5.2 (max) when you need intelligence above 21.3, and Qwen3 Coder Next when 21.3 is enough.
| Metric | GLM-5.2 (max) | Qwen3 Coder Next | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 52.6 | 21.3 | −59.5% Qwen3 Coder Next is 59.5% less intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $843.44 | $250.18 | −70.3% Qwen3 Coder Next is 70.3% cheaper |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 23.83s | 4.97s | −79.1% Qwen3 Coder Next is 79.1% faster |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $1.40 / $4.40 | $0.35 / $1.20 | |
| Input modalities | Not reported | Not reported |
Qwen3 Coder Next vs GLM-5.2 (max): 59.5% less intelligence, 70.3% less cost to run the AA benchmark, and 79.1% 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, Muse Spark 1.2 (xhigh) scores 56.80 for $639.
- Qwen3 Coder Next is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, GPT-5.6 Luna (max) scores 52.30 for $172.
GLM-5.2 (max)Qwen3 Coder NextToday'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-coder-next · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/glm-5-2/qwen3-coder-next?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill