GLM-5.3 (Max) vs Qwen3.6 27B (Reasoning)
Which is better for the money: GLM-5.3 (Max) by Z AI or Qwen3.6 27B (Reasoning) 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-5.3 (Max) scores 23.4 points higher (44.8 vs 21.4) but costs 2.2× as much to run the benchmark ($2503 vs $1145; flagship vs premium cost classes). Pick GLM-5.3 (Max) when the extra intelligence is worth the premium, otherwise Qwen3.6 27B (Reasoning).
| Metric | GLM-5.3 (Max) | Qwen3.6 27B (Reasoning) | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 44.8 | 21.4 | −52.2% Qwen3.6 27B (Reasonin… is 52.2% less intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $2,503.48 | $1,145.36 | −54.2% Qwen3.6 27B (Reasonin… is 54.2% cheaper |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 28.28s | 111.39s | +293.9% Qwen3.6 27B (Reasonin… is 293.9% slower |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $1.40 / $4.40 | $0.60 / $3.60 | |
| Input modalities | Text | Text, Image, Video |
Qwen3.6 27B (Reasoning) vs GLM-5.3 (Max): 52.2% less intelligence, 54.2% less cost to run the AA benchmark, and 293.9% slower end-to-end.
Today's Pareto frontier
Against the frontier
- GLM-5.3 (Max) is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, Claude Opus 5.5 (High, Default Fallback) scores 53.60 for $2172.
- Qwen3.6 27B (Reasoning) is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, GPT-6.1 Sol (Max) scores 51.80 for $1082.
GLM-5.3 (Max)Qwen3.6 27B (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-5-3/qwen3-6-27b · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/glm-5-3/qwen3-6-27b?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill