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 2026-09-22.
Trade-off
Verdict
Depends on your budget
GLM-5.2 (max) scores 24.5 points higher (33.7 vs 9.2) but costs 3.3× as much to run the benchmark ($1559 vs $476; premium vs mid-range cost classes). They are not alternatives at one budget: pick GLM-5.2 (max) when you need intelligence above 9.2, and Qwen3 Coder Next when 9.2 is enough.
| Metric | GLM-5.2 (max) | Qwen3 Coder Next | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 33.7 | 9.2 | −72.7% Qwen3 Coder Next is 72.7% less intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $1,559.05 | $476.23 | −69.5% Qwen3 Coder Next is 69.5% cheaper |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 40.65s | 6.95s | −82.9% Qwen3 Coder Next is 82.9% faster |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $1.40 / $4.40 | $0.35 / $1.20 | |
| Input modalities | Text | Text |
Qwen3 Coder Next vs GLM-5.2 (max): 72.7% less intelligence, 69.5% less cost to run the AA benchmark, and 82.9% 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, MiMo-V2.6-Pro scores 46.30 for $207.
- Qwen3 Coder Next is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, MiMo-V2.6-Pro scores 46.30 for $207.
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