Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

GLM 5.1 vs Qwen3.6 Plus

GLM 5.1 leads Qwen3.6 Plus on coding, 49.2 to 44.1 on the Vibe Coding Index, and Qwen3.6 Plus costs 2.3x less per output token ($1.95 vs $4.40 per million). Updated October 21, 2026; 72 benchmarks have a result for both.

Replace GLM 5.1 Replace Qwen3.6 Plus
GLM 5.1Z.ai
Coding
49.2
Overall
57.5
Output $/M
$4.40
57
Qwen3.6 PlusQwen
Coding
44.1
Overall
56.2
Output $/M
$1.95
12
vs boards won of 72 shared, 3 tied

GLM 5.1 or Qwen3.6 Plus: which to pick

Pick GLM 5.1 for coding: it scores 49.2 on the Vibe Coding Index against 44.1 for Qwen3.6 Plus.

Pick Qwen3.6 Plus for output tokens 2.3x cheaper ($1.95 vs $4.40 per million) and a larger context window (1M against 205K tokens).

Model AGLM 5.1Z.ai49.2/1003 independent benchmarks$0.60 per solved taskModel BQwen3.6 PlusQwen44.1/1003 independent benchmarks$1.19 per solved task
Shared results
72
GLM 5.1 only
17
Qwen3.6 Plus only
11
Like-for-like categories
8 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 5.1 49.2 from 3 benchmarks, Qwen3.6 Plus 44.1 from 3 benchmarks.
Widest category
Web design, 8.6 points apart on average over 8 shared benchmarks.
Widest single gap
Design Arena: data viz: GLM 5.1 1366 against Qwen3.6 Plus 1228, 17.3 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
Output price
GLM 5.1 $4.40 against Qwen3.6 Plus $1.95 per million output tokens, 2.3x apart.
Context window
GLM 5.1 takes 205K tokens, Qwen3.6 Plus 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 5.1BarsQwen3.6 PlusTies
Coding1121 tie
Intelligence11
Agentic work301 tie
Reasoning62
Math221 tie
Knowledge83
Web design80
General182
All shared boards57123 ties
CodingLike-for-likeSix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index112
Coding benchmarks for GLM 5.1 and Qwen3.6 Plus
BenchmarkGLM 5.1Qwen3.6 PlusLeader
LMArena WebDev15081461GLM 5.1
AA Coding Index55.854.5GLM 5.1
LiveCodeBench (Vals AI)81.4%86.0%Qwen3.6 Plus
SWE-bench Verified (Vals AI)76.4%73.4%GLM 5.1
Vibe Code Bench (Vals AI)31.5%25.6%GLM 5.1
Code migration (Vals AI)25.8%11.1%GLM 5.1
ProgramBench (Vals AI)0.0%0.0%Tie
Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals AI)56.9%53.2%GLM 5.1
SciCode44.8%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run)43.2%43.9%Qwen3.6 Plus
WeirdML57.1%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
ALE-Bench887.1670.1GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: coding14851467GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: software and IT14841462GLM 5.1
LMArena WebDev: React15051454GLM 5.1
LMArena WebDev: HTML15081463GLM 5.1
LMArena WebDev: from an imageNot measured1472Only Qwen3.6 Plus measured
Neither model has a result on the other 22 boards here
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index11
Intelligence benchmarks for GLM 5.1 and Qwen3.6 Plus
BenchmarkGLM 5.1Qwen3.6 PlusLeader
AA Intelligence Index26.127.0Qwen3.6 Plus
Epoch Capabilities Index149.8147.3GLM 5.1
Agentic workLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index30
Agentic work benchmarks for GLM 5.1 and Qwen3.6 Plus
BenchmarkGLM 5.1Qwen3.6 PlusLeader
AA Agentic Index23.9Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
Design Arena: agents building web apps1175Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
Design Arena: agents building full-stack apps1167Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
Design Arena: agents building mobile apps1162Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
Design Arena: agents building Android apps1180Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
Design Arena: agents building Godot games1053Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
Design Arena: agents building games1164Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
Design Arena: HTML slides1170Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
Design Arena: PowerPoint slides1188Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
Design Arena: spreadsheets1315Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
Finance Agent (Vals AI)44.8%40.9%GLM 5.1
Tax Agent Bench (Vals AI)Not measured7.7%Only Qwen3.6 Plus measured
Legal Research Bench (Vals AI)27.9%14.9%GLM 5.1
Excel Modeling Benchmark (Vals AI)Not measured32.9%Only Qwen3.6 Plus measured
τ²-Bench Telecom97.7%97.7%Tie
APEX-Agents40.9%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
Vending-Bench 2$5,634$5,115GLM 5.1
Neither model has a result on the other 24 boards here
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index62
Reasoning benchmarks for GLM 5.1 and Qwen3.6 Plus
BenchmarkGLM 5.1Qwen3.6 PlusLeader
GPQA Diamond84.5%87.4%Qwen3.6 Plus
MMMU Pro (Vals AI)Not measured84.2%Only Qwen3.6 Plus measured
GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run)86.8%88.2%Qwen3.6 Plus
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)30.1%27.8%GLM 5.1
GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run)89.9%88.4%GLM 5.1
SimpleBench55.1%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
Chess puzzles20.0%14.0%GLM 5.1
Mystery game puzzlesNot measured12.0%Only Qwen3.6 Plus measured
LMArena Text: hard prompts14731448GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: expert14781454GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: hard prompts in English14821455GLM 5.1
Neither model has a result on the other 11 boards here
MathLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index22
Math benchmarks for GLM 5.1 and Qwen3.6 Plus
BenchmarkGLM 5.1Qwen3.6 PlusLeader
AIME91.9%94.6%Qwen3.6 Plus
OTIS Mock AIME93.3%93.3%Tie
FrontierMath, tiers 1 to 336.8%38.2%Qwen3.6 Plus
ProofBench22.2%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
LMArena Text: math14731449GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: mathematical work14701448GLM 5.1
Neither model has a result on the other 7 boards here
KnowledgeLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index83
Knowledge benchmarks for GLM 5.1 and Qwen3.6 Plus
BenchmarkGLM 5.1Qwen3.6 PlusLeader
MMLU Pro86.9%87.7%Qwen3.6 Plus
LegalBench (Vals AI)84.4%84.2%GLM 5.1
CaseLaw (Vals AI)51.5%51.5%GLM 5.1
CorpFin (Vals AI)64.5%61.9%GLM 5.1
TaxEval (Vals AI)71.2%74.7%Qwen3.6 Plus
MortgageTax (Vals AI)Not measured68.0%Only Qwen3.6 Plus measured
MedCode (Vals AI)41.6%36.9%GLM 5.1
SimpleQA Verified34.0%44.1%Qwen3.6 Plus
LMArena Text: science14781439GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: medicine and healthcare14741442GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: legal and government14651437GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: business and finance14521430GLM 5.1
Neither model has a result on the other 6 boards here
Web designLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index80
Web design benchmarks for GLM 5.1 and Qwen3.6 Plus
BenchmarkGLM 5.1Qwen3.6 PlusLeader
Design Arena: websites12901243GLM 5.1
Design Arena: UI components12921233GLM 5.1
Design Arena: game dev12651211GLM 5.1
Design Arena: data viz13661228GLM 5.1
Design Arena: 3D13361202GLM 5.1
Design Arena: all code categories12681236GLM 5.1
Design Arena: SVG12181161GLM 5.1
Design Arena: ASCII art11421113GLM 5.1
Neither model has a result on the other 1 board here
GeneralLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index182
General benchmarks for GLM 5.1 and Qwen3.6 Plus
BenchmarkGLM 5.1Qwen3.6 PlusLeader
Public Benefits Bench (Vals AI)61.8%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
SAGE (Vals AI)Not measured44.9%Only Qwen3.6 Plus measured
MedScribe (Vals AI)72.3%77.0%Qwen3.6 Plus
Vals Multimodal IndexNot measured51.5%Only Qwen3.6 Plus measured
IFBench76.3%75.2%GLM 5.1
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR)73.7%78.3%Qwen3.6 Plus
DTBenchNot measured81.9%Only Qwen3.6 Plus measured
LMCANot measured33.1%Only Qwen3.6 Plus measured
CL-benchNot measured20.3%Only Qwen3.6 Plus measured
ExploitBench18.1%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.1 measured
LMArena Text14631436GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: instruction following14531424GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: creative writing14531404GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: English14761445GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: non-English14481424GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: Chinese15151477GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: German14671451GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: Japanese14351390GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: Korean14241379GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: French14701455GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: Spanish14681432GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: Russian14541434GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: Polish14491433GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: multi-turn14731438GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: longer queries14671439GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: writing and language14541418GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: entertainment and media14421402GLM 5.1
Neither model has a result on the other 19 boards here
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
Image generation benchmarks for GLM 5.1 and Qwen3.6 Plus
BenchmarkGLM 5.1Qwen3.6 PlusLeader
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 5.1$0.0036Fits in one request
Qwen3.6 Plus$0.0013Fits in one request

Qwen3.6 Plus costs less

Repository review

50K input + 3K output tokens

GLM 5.1$0.083Fits in one request
Qwen3.6 Plus$0.022Fits in one request

Qwen3.6 Plus costs less

Agent loop

200K input + 10K output tokens

GLM 5.1$0.324Exceeds the context window
Qwen3.6 Plus$0.085Fits in one request

Qwen3.6 Plus 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 5.1 and Qwen3.6 Plus
SpecificationZ.ai GLM 5.1Qwen3.6 Plus
MakerZ.aiQwen
WeightsOpen weightsNo public weights listed
ReleasedApril 7, 2026April 2, 2026
Context window205K1M
Input $/Mtok$1.40$0.325
Output $/Mtok$4.40$1.95
Coding index49.244.1
Independent measurements behind it33
Cost per solved task$0.60$1.19
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is GLM 5.1 better than Qwen3.6 Plus for coding?

Pick GLM 5.1 for coding: it scores 49.2 on the Vibe Coding Index against 44.1 for Qwen3.6 Plus. Pick Qwen3.6 Plus for output tokens 2.3x cheaper ($1.95 vs $4.40 per million) and a larger context window (1M against 205K tokens).

Which is cheaper, GLM 5.1 or Qwen3.6 Plus?

GLM 5.1 costs $1.40 per million input tokens and $4.40 per million output tokens; Qwen3.6 Plus costs $0.325 and $1.95. Per solved SWE-bench Verified task, GLM 5.1 costs $0.60 and Qwen3.6 Plus $1.19.

Which has the bigger context window, GLM 5.1 or Qwen3.6 Plus?

Qwen3.6 Plus, with 1M tokens against 205K.

How many benchmarks is the GLM 5.1 vs Qwen3.6 Plus comparison based on?

72 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 21, 2026. GLM 5.1's coding index rests on 3 independent benchmarks and Qwen3.6 Plus's on 3. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.

Compare next

Embed this comparison on your site

Free under CC BY 4.0, while the source link stays visible. Preview the frame · Terms and other embeds

<iframe src="https://llmbenchmark.ai/embed/compare/glm-5-1-vs-qwen3-6-plus" title="GLM 5.1 vs Qwen3.6 Plus, LLMBenchmark.ai" width="100%" height="360" style="border:0;max-width:100%" loading="lazy"></iframe>
<p style="font:13px/1.4 sans-serif;margin:6px 0 0">Source: <a href="https://llmbenchmark.ai/compare/glm-5-1-vs-qwen3-6-plus">LLMBenchmark.ai, GLM 5.1 vs Qwen3.6 Plus</a></p>