Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

GLM 4.5 vs Qwen2.5 7B Instruct

Qwen2.5 7B Instruct costs 11.0x less per output token than GLM 4.5 ($0.20 vs $2.20 per million). Updated October 21, 2026; no benchmark has tested both models yet.

GLM 4.5Z.ai
Coding
No data
Overall
No data
Output $/M
$2.20
Qwen2.5 7B InstructQwen
Coding
No data
Overall
No data
Output $/M
$0.20
vs $2.20 vs $0.20 per 1M output tokens. Qwen2.5 7B Instruct is 11.0x cheaper.

GLM 4.5 or Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: which to pick

Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding.

Pick GLM 4.5 for a larger context window (131K against 33K tokens).

No benchmark has tested both yet. GLM 4.5 has results on SWE-bench Verified, LiveCodeBench (Vals AI) and LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run); Qwen2.5 7B Instruct on Epoch Capabilities Index, BALROG and GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run). Compare them on price and context instead.

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 not benchmarked, Qwen2.5 7B Instruct not benchmarked.
Widest category
None yet: no category has been tested on both models.
Widest single gap
None yet: no benchmark has tested both models.
Output price
GLM 4.5 $2.20 against Qwen2.5 7B Instruct $0.20 per million output tokens, 11.0x apart.
Context window
GLM 4.5 takes 131K tokens, Qwen2.5 7B Instruct 33K.

Benchmark by benchmark

Every board either model has a result on, a category to a fold; bars are each result on a 0 to 100 scale. Only one model is measured on each, so no row names a leader.

CodingDirectional onlySix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index8 boards measured
Coding benchmarks for GLM 4.5 and Qwen2.5 7B Instruct
BenchmarkGLM 4.5Qwen2.5 7B InstructLeader
SWE-bench Verified64.2%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5 measured
LiveCodeBench (Vals AI)67.5%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5 measured
LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run)73.8%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5 measured
Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run)22.0%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5 measured
WeirdML40.6%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5 measured
ALE-Bench344.8Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5 measured
LMArena Text: coding1434Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5 measured
LMArena Text: software and IT1440Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 31 boards here
IntelligenceDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index2 boards measured
Intelligence benchmarks for GLM 4.5 and Qwen2.5 7B Instruct
BenchmarkGLM 4.5Qwen2.5 7B InstructLeader
AA Intelligence Index12.8Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5 measured
Epoch Capabilities IndexNot measured118.5Only Qwen2.5 7B Instruct measured
Agentic workDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index2 boards measured
Agentic work benchmarks for GLM 4.5 and Qwen2.5 7B Instruct
BenchmarkGLM 4.5Qwen2.5 7B InstructLeader
τ²-Bench Telecom43.0%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5 measured
BALROGNot measured7.8%Only Qwen2.5 7B Instruct measured
Neither model has a result on the other 39 boards here
ReasoningDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index8 boards measured
Reasoning benchmarks for GLM 4.5 and Qwen2.5 7B Instruct
BenchmarkGLM 4.5Qwen2.5 7B InstructLeader
GPQA Diamond72.2%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5 measured
GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run)78.2%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5 measured
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)13.0%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5 measured
GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run)Not measured35.5%Only Qwen2.5 7B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: hard prompts1429Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5 measured
LMArena Text: expert1433Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5 measured
LMArena Text: hard prompts in English1429Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5 measured
Kagi LLM Benchmark57.9%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 14 boards here
MathDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index8 boards measured
Math benchmarks for GLM 4.5 and Qwen2.5 7B Instruct
BenchmarkGLM 4.5Qwen2.5 7B InstructLeader
AIME86.7%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5 measured
MATH 500 (Vals AI)94.0%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5 measured
MGSM (Vals AI)90.8%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5 measured
AA Math Index73.7Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5 measured
AIME 2025 (Artificial Analysis run)73.7%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5 measured
OTIS Mock AIMENot measured2.5%Only Qwen2.5 7B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: math1427Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5 measured
LMArena Text: mathematical work1430Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 5 boards here
KnowledgeDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index11 boards measured
Knowledge benchmarks for GLM 4.5 and Qwen2.5 7B Instruct
BenchmarkGLM 4.5Qwen2.5 7B InstructLeader
MMLU Pro81.2%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5 measured
LegalBench (Vals AI)75.6%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5 measured
CorpFin (Vals AI)61.0%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5 measured
TaxEval (Vals AI)72.4%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5 measured
MedQA (Vals AI)90.0%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5 measured
MMLU Pro (Artificial Analysis run)83.5%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5 measured
MMLUNot measured72.9%Only Qwen2.5 7B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: science1444Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5 measured
LMArena Text: medicine and healthcare1455Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5 measured
LMArena Text: legal and government1438Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5 measured
LMArena Text: business and finance1420Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 7 boards here
Web designDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index7 boards measured
Web design benchmarks for GLM 4.5 and Qwen2.5 7B Instruct
BenchmarkGLM 4.5Qwen2.5 7B InstructLeader
Design Arena: websites1170Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5 measured
Design Arena: UI components1144Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5 measured
Design Arena: game dev1145Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5 measured
Design Arena: data viz1159Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5 measured
Design Arena: 3D1170Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5 measured
Design Arena: all code categories1165Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5 measured
Design Arena: SVG1096Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 2 boards here
GeneralDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index22 boards measured
General benchmarks for GLM 4.5 and Qwen2.5 7B Instruct
BenchmarkGLM 4.5Qwen2.5 7B InstructLeader
IFBench44.1%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5 measured
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR)52.7%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5 measured
DTBenchNot measured47.7%Only Qwen2.5 7B Instruct measured
LMCANot measured6.4%Only Qwen2.5 7B Instruct measured
Creative writing (Lech Mazur)73.4%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5 measured
LMArena Text1430Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5 measured
LMArena Text: instruction following1404Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5 measured
LMArena Text: creative writing1395Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5 measured
LMArena Text: English1437Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5 measured
LMArena Text: non-English1417Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5 measured
LMArena Text: Chinese1465Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5 measured
LMArena Text: German1407Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5 measured
LMArena Text: Japanese1415Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5 measured
LMArena Text: Korean1380Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5 measured
LMArena Text: French1418Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5 measured
LMArena Text: Spanish1454Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5 measured
LMArena Text: Russian1413Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5 measured
LMArena Text: Polish1422Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5 measured
LMArena Text: multi-turn1415Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5 measured
LMArena Text: longer queries1412Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5 measured
LMArena Text: writing and language1403Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5 measured
LMArena Text: entertainment and media1404Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 24 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$0.0017Fits in one request
Qwen2.5 7B Instruct$0.0002Fits in one request

Qwen2.5 7B Instruct costs less

Repository review

50K input + 3K output tokens

GLM 4.5$0.037Fits in one request
Qwen2.5 7B Instruct$0.0056Exceeds the context window

Qwen2.5 7B Instruct costs less

Agent loop

200K input + 10K output tokens

GLM 4.5$0.142Exceeds the context window
Qwen2.5 7B Instruct$0.022Exceeds the context window

Qwen2.5 7B Instruct 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 and Qwen2.5 7B Instruct
SpecificationZ.ai GLM 4.5Qwen2.5 7B Instruct
MakerZ.aiQwen
WeightsOpen weightsOpen weights
ReleasedJuly 25, 2025October 16, 2024
Context window131K33K
Input $/Mtok$0.60$0.10
Output $/Mtok$2.20$0.20
Coding indexNot benchmarkedNot benchmarked
Independent measurements behind it00
Cost per solved taskNot computableNot computable
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is GLM 4.5 better than Qwen2.5 7B Instruct for coding?

Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Pick GLM 4.5 for a larger context window (131K against 33K tokens).

Which is cheaper, GLM 4.5 or Qwen2.5 7B Instruct?

GLM 4.5 costs $0.60 per million input tokens and $2.20 per million output tokens; Qwen2.5 7B Instruct costs $0.10 and $0.20. Cost per solved task is known for neither of them.

Which has the bigger context window, GLM 4.5 or Qwen2.5 7B Instruct?

GLM 4.5, with 131K tokens against 33K.

Has any benchmark tested both GLM 4.5 and Qwen2.5 7B Instruct?

No benchmark has tested both yet. GLM 4.5 has results on SWE-bench Verified, LiveCodeBench (Vals AI) and LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run); Qwen2.5 7B Instruct on Epoch Capabilities Index, BALROG and GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run). Compare them on price and context instead. Data as of October 21, 2026.

Compare next