Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

GLM 4.5V vs Qwen2.5 7B Instruct

Qwen2.5 7B Instruct costs 9.0x less per output token than GLM 4.5V ($0.20 vs $1.80 per million). Updated October 21, 2026; no benchmark has tested both models yet.

GLM 4.5VZ.ai
Coding
No data
Overall
No data
Output $/M
$1.80
Qwen2.5 7B InstructQwen
Coding
No data
Overall
No data
Output $/M
$0.20
vs $1.80 vs $0.20 per 1M output tokens. Qwen2.5 7B Instruct is 9.0x cheaper.

GLM 4.5V 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 4.5V for a larger context window (66K against 33K tokens).

No benchmark has tested both yet. GLM 4.5V has results on LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run), Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run) and LMArena Text: coding; 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 4.5V 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 4.5V $1.80 against Qwen2.5 7B Instruct $0.20 per million output tokens, 9.0x apart.
Context window
GLM 4.5V takes 66K 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 Index4 boards measured
Coding benchmarks for GLM 4.5V and Qwen2.5 7B Instruct
BenchmarkGLM 4.5VQwen2.5 7B InstructLeader
LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run)60.4%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5V measured
Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run)6.8%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5V measured
LMArena Text: coding1347Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5V measured
LMArena Text: software and IT1353Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5V measured
Neither model has a result on the other 35 boards here
IntelligenceDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index2 boards measured
Intelligence benchmarks for GLM 4.5V and Qwen2.5 7B Instruct
BenchmarkGLM 4.5VQwen2.5 7B InstructLeader
AA Intelligence Index7.6Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5V 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 4.5V and Qwen2.5 7B Instruct
BenchmarkGLM 4.5VQwen2.5 7B InstructLeader
τ²-Bench Telecom22.5%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5V 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 index9 boards measured
Reasoning benchmarks for GLM 4.5V and Qwen2.5 7B Instruct
BenchmarkGLM 4.5VQwen2.5 7B InstructLeader
GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run)68.4%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5V measured
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)6.3%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5V measured
GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run)Not measured35.5%Only Qwen2.5 7B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: hard prompts1335Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5V measured
LMArena Text: expert1353Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5V measured
LMArena Text: hard prompts in English1357Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5V measured
LMArena Vision: diagrams1151Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5V measured
LMArena Vision: homework1163Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5V measured
Kagi LLM Benchmark59.8%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5V measured
Neither model has a result on the other 13 boards here
MathDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index5 boards measured
Math benchmarks for GLM 4.5V and Qwen2.5 7B Instruct
BenchmarkGLM 4.5VQwen2.5 7B InstructLeader
AA Math Index73.0Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5V measured
AIME 2025 (Artificial Analysis run)73.0%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5V measured
OTIS Mock AIMENot measured2.5%Only Qwen2.5 7B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: math1354Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5V measured
LMArena Text: mathematical work1336Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5V measured
Neither model has a result on the other 8 boards here
KnowledgeDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index6 boards measured
Knowledge benchmarks for GLM 4.5V and Qwen2.5 7B Instruct
BenchmarkGLM 4.5VQwen2.5 7B InstructLeader
MMLU Pro (Artificial Analysis run)78.8%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5V measured
MMLUNot measured72.9%Only Qwen2.5 7B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: science1330Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5V measured
LMArena Text: medicine and healthcare1349Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5V measured
LMArena Text: legal and government1338Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5V measured
LMArena Text: business and finance1309Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5V measured
Neither model has a result on the other 12 boards here
GeneralDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index20 boards measured
General benchmarks for GLM 4.5V and Qwen2.5 7B Instruct
BenchmarkGLM 4.5VQwen2.5 7B InstructLeader
IFBench34.2%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5V measured
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR)0.0%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5V measured
DTBenchNot measured47.7%Only Qwen2.5 7B Instruct measured
LMCANot measured6.4%Only Qwen2.5 7B Instruct measured
LMArena Text1333Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5V measured
LMArena Text: instruction following1311Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5V measured
LMArena Text: creative writing1294Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5V measured
LMArena Vision1154Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5V measured
LMArena Text: English1362Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5V measured
LMArena Text: non-English1303Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5V measured
LMArena Text: Chinese1337Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5V measured
LMArena Text: Spanish1336Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5V measured
LMArena Text: Russian1298Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5V measured
LMArena Text: Polish1302Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5V measured
LMArena Text: multi-turn1333Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5V measured
LMArena Text: longer queries1305Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5V measured
LMArena Text: writing and language1302Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5V measured
LMArena Text: entertainment and media1303Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5V measured
LMArena Vision: English1183Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5V measured
LMArena Vision: reading text1151Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5V measured
Neither model has a result on the other 26 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 4.5V$0.0015Fits 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 4.5V$0.035Fits 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 4.5V$0.138Exceeds 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 4.5V and Qwen2.5 7B Instruct
SpecificationZ.ai GLM 4.5VQwen2.5 7B Instruct
MakerZ.aiQwen
WeightsOpen weightsOpen weights
ReleasedAugust 11, 2025October 16, 2024
Context window66K33K
Input $/Mtok$0.60$0.10
Output $/Mtok$1.80$0.20
Coding indexNot benchmarkedNot benchmarked
Independent measurements behind it00
Cost per solved taskNot computableNot computable
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is GLM 4.5V 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 4.5V for a larger context window (66K against 33K tokens).

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

GLM 4.5V costs $0.60 per million input tokens and $1.80 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 4.5V or Qwen2.5 7B Instruct?

GLM 4.5V, with 66K tokens against 33K.

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

No benchmark has tested both yet. GLM 4.5V has results on LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run), Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run) and LMArena Text: coding; 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