Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

GLM 4.5 Air vs Qwen3.8 27B

Qwen3.8 27B leads GLM 4.5 Air on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index, 33.7 to 11.1, and GLM 4.5 Air costs 2.3x less per output token ($1.10 vs $2.55 per million). Updated October 22, 2026; 32 benchmarks have a result for both.

Replace GLM 4.5 Air Replace Qwen3.8 27B
GLM 4.5 AirZ.ai
Coding
No data
Overall
No data
Output $/M
$1.10
0
Qwen3.8 27BQwen
Coding
74.2
Overall
59.6
Output $/M
$2.55
32
vs boards won of 32 shared

GLM 4.5 Air or Qwen3.8 27B: which to pick

Only Qwen3.8 27B has a coding score, 74.2 on the Vibe Coding Index; GLM 4.5 Air has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding.

Pick GLM 4.5 Air for output tokens 2.3x cheaper ($1.10 vs $2.55 per million).

Model AGLM 4.5 AirZ.aiNot benchmarkedNo coding benchmarkNo cost per solved taskModel BQwen3.8 27BQwen74.2/1004 independent benchmarks$1.26 per solved task
Shared results
32
GLM 4.5 Air only
17
Qwen3.8 27B only
53
Like-for-like categories
6 of 9

Only benchmarks that tested both models count toward a pick; a result only one model has is shown but not compared.

Which one for your work

Each card is decided by one number both models carry. Where only one has it, the card says so and makes no call.

At a glance

Coding index
GLM 4.5 Air not benchmarked, Qwen3.8 27B 74.2 from 4 benchmarks.
Widest category
Intelligence, 22.6 points apart on average over 1 shared benchmark.
Widest single gap
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR): GLM 4.5 Air 46.7% against Qwen3.8 27B 82.0%, 35.3 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
Output price
GLM 4.5 Air $1.10 against Qwen3.8 27B $2.55 per million output tokens, 2.3x apart.
Context window
GLM 4.5 Air takes 131K tokens, Qwen3.8 27B 1M.

Benchmark by benchmark

First the score: boards each model leads, per category, where both have a result. Then every board, a category to a fold; bars are each result on a 0 to 100 scale, so compare the two in a row, not one row with another.

Boards won, where both have a result
CategoryGLM 4.5 AirBarsQwen3.8 27BTies
Coding02
Intelligence01
Reasoning05
Math02
Knowledge04
General018
All shared boards032
CodingLike-for-likeSix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index02
Coding benchmarks for GLM 4.5 Air and Qwen3.8 27B
BenchmarkGLM 4.5 AirQwen3.8 27BLeader
LiveBench codingNot measured86.8%Only Qwen3.8 27B measured
LMArena WebDevNot measured1593Only Qwen3.8 27B measured
AA Coding IndexNot measured68.1Only Qwen3.8 27B measured
LiveCodeBench (Vals AI)Not measured84.0%Only Qwen3.8 27B measured
SWE-bench Verified (Vals AI)Not measured86.0%Only Qwen3.8 27B measured
Vibe Code Bench (Vals AI)Not measured64.8%Only Qwen3.8 27B measured
Code migration (Vals AI)Not measured14.2%Only Qwen3.8 27B measured
ProgramBench (Vals AI)Not measured0.0%Only Qwen3.8 27B measured
IOI (Vals AI)Not measured39.1%Only Qwen3.8 27B measured
Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals AI)Not measured58.4%Only Qwen3.8 27B measured
SkillsBench (Vals AI)Not measured38.1%Only Qwen3.8 27B measured
CyberBench (Vals AI)Not measured67.8%Only Qwen3.8 27B measured
LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run)68.4%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5 Air measured
SciCodeNot measured46.6%Only Qwen3.8 27B measured
Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run)20.5%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5 Air measured
GSO-Bench2.9%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5 Air measured
LMArena Text: coding13971483Qwen3.8 27B
LMArena Text: software and IT14011478Qwen3.8 27B
LMArena WebDev: ReactNot measured1602Only Qwen3.8 27B measured
LMArena WebDev: HTMLNot measured1570Only Qwen3.8 27B measured
LMArena WebDev: from an imageNot measured1577Only Qwen3.8 27B measured
Neither model has a result on the other 22 boards here
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
Intelligence benchmarks for GLM 4.5 Air and Qwen3.8 27B
BenchmarkGLM 4.5 AirQwen3.8 27BLeader
AA Intelligence Index11.133.7Qwen3.8 27B
Epoch Capabilities IndexNot measured151.7Only Qwen3.8 27B measured
Agentic workDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index11 boards, none shared
Agentic work benchmarks for GLM 4.5 Air and Qwen3.8 27B
BenchmarkGLM 4.5 AirQwen3.8 27BLeader
AA Agentic IndexNot measured45.8Only Qwen3.8 27B measured
LiveBench researchNot measured59.4%Only Qwen3.8 27B measured
LiveBench browserNot measured32.0%Only Qwen3.8 27B measured
LiveBench long agenticNot measured27.9%Only Qwen3.8 27B measured
Finance Agent (Vals AI)Not measured48.5%Only Qwen3.8 27B measured
Tax Agent Bench (Vals AI)Not measured30.9%Only Qwen3.8 27B measured
Legal Research Bench (Vals AI)Not measured36.1%Only Qwen3.8 27B measured
Excel Modeling Benchmark (Vals AI)Not measured59.7%Only Qwen3.8 27B measured
Terminal-Bench-Science (Vals AI)Not measured0.0%Only Qwen3.8 27B measured
τ²-Bench Telecom46.5%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5 Air measured
APEX-AgentsNot measured47.5%Only Qwen3.8 27B measured
Neither model has a result on the other 31 boards here
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index05
Reasoning benchmarks for GLM 4.5 Air and Qwen3.8 27B
BenchmarkGLM 4.5 AirQwen3.8 27BLeader
GPQA DiamondNot measured88.9%Only Qwen3.8 27B measured
LiveBench reasoningNot measured80.0%Only Qwen3.8 27B measured
MMMU Pro (Vals AI)Not measured83.9%Only Qwen3.8 27B measured
GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run)73.3%90.5%Qwen3.8 27B
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)7.0%33.9%Qwen3.8 27B
ARC-AGINot measured87.5%Only Qwen3.8 27B measured
ARC-AGI-2Not measured42.4%Only Qwen3.8 27B measured
LMArena Text: hard prompts13791459Qwen3.8 27B
LMArena Text: expert13701479Qwen3.8 27B
LMArena Text: hard prompts in English13881461Qwen3.8 27B
LMArena Vision: diagramsNot measured1285Only Qwen3.8 27B measured
LMArena Vision: homeworkNot measured1295Only Qwen3.8 27B measured
Kagi LLM Benchmark43.0%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5 Air measured
Neither model has a result on the other 10 boards here
MathLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index02
Math benchmarks for GLM 4.5 Air and Qwen3.8 27B
BenchmarkGLM 4.5 AirQwen3.8 27BLeader
AA Math Index80.7Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5 Air measured
AIME 2025 (Artificial Analysis run)80.7%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5 Air measured
ProofBenchNot measured16.0%Only Qwen3.8 27B measured
LMArena Text: math13961455Qwen3.8 27B
LMArena Text: mathematical work13961458Qwen3.8 27B
MathArena12.0%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5 Air measured
Neither model has a result on the other 8 boards here
KnowledgeLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index04
Knowledge benchmarks for GLM 4.5 Air and Qwen3.8 27B
BenchmarkGLM 4.5 AirQwen3.8 27BLeader
MMLU ProNot measured84.3%Only Qwen3.8 27B measured
LegalBench (Vals AI)Not measured82.4%Only Qwen3.8 27B measured
TaxEval (Vals AI)Not measured70.8%Only Qwen3.8 27B measured
MortgageTax (Vals AI)Not measured64.9%Only Qwen3.8 27B measured
MedCode (Vals AI)Not measured28.7%Only Qwen3.8 27B measured
MMLU Pro (Artificial Analysis run)81.5%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5 Air measured
LMArena Text: science14071467Qwen3.8 27B
LMArena Text: medicine and healthcare14021437Qwen3.8 27B
LMArena Text: legal and government13821447Qwen3.8 27B
LMArena Text: business and finance13711438Qwen3.8 27B
Neither model has a result on the other 10 boards here
Web designDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index8 boards, none shared
Web design benchmarks for GLM 4.5 Air and Qwen3.8 27B
BenchmarkGLM 4.5 AirQwen3.8 27BLeader
Design Arena: websites1146Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5 Air measured
Design Arena: UI components1121Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5 Air measured
Design Arena: game dev1093Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5 Air measured
Design Arena: data viz1186Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5 Air measured
Design Arena: 3D1122Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5 Air measured
Design Arena: all code categories1137Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5 Air measured
Design Arena: SVG1070Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5 Air measured
LiveBench designNot measured75.9%Only Qwen3.8 27B measured
Neither model has a result on the other 1 board here
GeneralLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index018
General benchmarks for GLM 4.5 Air and Qwen3.8 27B
BenchmarkGLM 4.5 AirQwen3.8 27BLeader
LiveBench data analysisNot measured76.6%Only Qwen3.8 27B measured
SAGE (Vals AI)Not measured52.4%Only Qwen3.8 27B measured
MedScribe (Vals AI)Not measured83.8%Only Qwen3.8 27B measured
IFBench37.6%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5 Air measured
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR)46.7%82.0%Qwen3.8 27B
DTBenchNot measured88.0%Only Qwen3.8 27B measured
LMCANot measured41.4%Only Qwen3.8 27B measured
Surface Evolver BenchNot measured45.0%Only Qwen3.8 27B measured
LMArena Text13841440Qwen3.8 27B
LMArena Text: instruction following13541436Qwen3.8 27B
LMArena Text: creative writing13431383Qwen3.8 27B
LMArena VisionNot measured1269Only Qwen3.8 27B measured
LMArena Text: English13971448Qwen3.8 27B
LMArena Text: non-English13661428Qwen3.8 27B
LMArena Text: Chinese14261501Qwen3.8 27B
LMArena Text: German13771443Qwen3.8 27B
LMArena Text: Japanese13481387Qwen3.8 27B
LMArena Text: Korean13081384Qwen3.8 27B
LMArena Text: French14001465Qwen3.8 27B
LMArena Text: Spanish13851449Qwen3.8 27B
LMArena Text: Russian13731415Qwen3.8 27B
LMArena Text: Polish13681439Qwen3.8 27B
LMArena Text: multi-turn13711440Qwen3.8 27B
LMArena Text: longer queries13661448Qwen3.8 27B
LMArena Text: writing and language13541405Qwen3.8 27B
LMArena Text: entertainment and media13391393Qwen3.8 27B
LMArena Vision: EnglishNot measured1267Only Qwen3.8 27B measured
LMArena Vision: ChineseNot measured1326Only Qwen3.8 27B measured
LMArena Vision: reading textNot measured1281Only Qwen3.8 27B measured
LMArena Vision: humorNot measured1235Only Qwen3.8 27B measured
LMArena Vision: creative writingNot measured1237Only Qwen3.8 27B measured
Neither model has a result on the other 17 boards here
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
Image generation benchmarks for GLM 4.5 Air and Qwen3.8 27B
BenchmarkGLM 4.5 AirQwen3.8 27BLeader
Neither model has a result on 5 boards here

What each workload costs

Three fixed token mixes at each model's listed price, so per-token rates become a bill.

Chat turn

1K input + 500 output tokens

GLM 4.5 Air$0.0008Fits in one request
Qwen3.8 27B$0.0017Fits in one request

GLM 4.5 Air costs less

Repository review

50K input + 3K output tokens

GLM 4.5 Air$0.013Fits in one request
Qwen3.8 27B$0.029Fits in one request

GLM 4.5 Air costs less

Agent loop

200K input + 10K output tokens

GLM 4.5 Air$0.051Exceeds the context window
Qwen3.8 27B$0.111Fits in one request

GLM 4.5 Air costs less

Listed OpenRouter rates, without cache or batch discounts. A workload that does not fit a model's context window would need splitting.

Specification differences

The leading value in a row is marked; a row with a missing value names no leader. Our two rows are marked in red.

Specifications of GLM 4.5 Air and Qwen3.8 27B
SpecificationZ.ai GLM 4.5 AirQwen3.8 27B
MakerZ.aiQwen
WeightsOpen weightsOpen weights
ReleasedJuly 25, 2025August 14, 2026
Context window131K1M
Input $/Mtok$0.20$0.425
Output $/Mtok$1.10$2.55
Coding indexNot benchmarked74.2
Independent measurements behind it04
Cost per solved taskNot computable$1.26
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is GLM 4.5 Air better than Qwen3.8 27B for coding?

Only Qwen3.8 27B has a coding score, 74.2 on the Vibe Coding Index; GLM 4.5 Air has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Pick GLM 4.5 Air for output tokens 2.3x cheaper ($1.10 vs $2.55 per million).

Which is cheaper, GLM 4.5 Air or Qwen3.8 27B?

GLM 4.5 Air costs $0.20 per million input tokens and $1.10 per million output tokens; Qwen3.8 27B costs $0.425 and $2.55. Cost per solved task is known for Qwen3.8 27B only.

Which has the bigger context window, GLM 4.5 Air or Qwen3.8 27B?

Qwen3.8 27B, with 1M tokens against 131K.

How many benchmarks is the GLM 4.5 Air vs Qwen3.8 27B comparison based on?

32 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 22, 2026. GLM 4.5 Air's coding index rests on 0 independent benchmarks and Qwen3.8 27B's on 4. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.

Compare next